jheapsandClaude Opus 5
1689ecb4f0
"Starting stack" is how a night opens. The setup panel offers it and says what it means — "seats without their own stack start here" — and everything a dealer looks at reads it: the puck, the action bar, what a player is allowed to bet. The money side didn't. The bank check and the standings read `seat.stack` directly, which is null for exactly those seats. Measured on a three-handed table with a $200 starting stack and nobody's own stack typed in: the felt played for $600, the bank check reported no chips in play and pronounced itself balanced, and the standings — the list a dealer settles the night from — listed nobody at all. Three players, six hundred dollars, and the tool's own accounting said the table was empty. Both now ask the same question the felt asks. The check reports $600 in play against nothing taken, which is the truth: those chips have not been paid for. Empty chairs are excluded, or the starting stack would make every one of them look like somebody holding two hundred dollars — a ten-seat table would have opened with $2,000 of imaginary chips. Being told is only half of it. The verdict names the seats rather than saying "somebody's rebuy probably wasn't recorded", because the dealer's next move is to go to a particular chair and the tool knows which. And the seats holding the table's starting stack — the dealer's own instruction, said once in the setup panel — can be written down in one tap instead of six trips through Add chips. Only those: what somebody's forgotten rebuy was is a question only the dealer can answer, and guessing it would be the tool inventing money, which is the fault this round is about. 14 new tests, with the stack source and the empty-chair test broken on purpose to confirm they fail. Walked through in the browser from a cleared table: set the starting stack, name three seats, and the panel goes from "balanced, no chips" to "$600 more in chips than cash taken. Ann, Ben and Cal are holding chips with no buy-in written down" — then to balanced, with the buy-ins recorded and undoable. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015bnp7xKUPFFSpwkYNFaPgb
Hold'em dealer tests
Unit tests for the money logic behind /Casino/TexasHoldem — the betting engine, the
side-pot calculator, the split calculator and the table state.
node --test tests/holdem/*.test.js
No install step, no package.json, no dependencies. The browser modules are plain
script-tag files that each end with a module.exports guard, so Node can require them
as-is; load.js puts them on globalThis under the same names they use to find each
other in the page, in the load order from TexasHoldem.cshtml.
What's covered
| File | Covers |
|---|---|
potCalculator.test.js |
Main and side pots, dead money, uncalled bets, odd-cent distribution |
betting.test.js |
Blinds, street completion, raises reopening the action, all-in run-outs |
state.test.js |
Button rotation, which seats post blinds, session standings |
splitCalculator.test.js |
Chopped pots, odd chips, unmakeable denominations |
invariants.test.js |
1000 randomised hands per property (see below) |
The layout audit
The unit tests above cover the money. uiAudit.js covers the thing you can only see
in a browser: whether a dealer can actually reach every control.
node tests/holdem/runUiAudit.js # needs Playwright and the site running
It checks WCAG AA contrast, touch target sizes, touch-action and tap highlights, that fields stay selectable and are large enough not to trigger iOS zoom, that nothing important is covered or off-screen with no way to scroll to it, that no grid column has collapsed to nothing, and that no text is painted outside its box. It runs over the table, all five overlays and Quick Split, at thirteen viewports from a 360px phone to a 1600px desktop and the same phones on their side — each viewport twice, once with a mouse and once with a thumb.
That last part, and two of those checks, are newer than this paragraph claiming them.
runAll() did not include the contrast check at all, and touch targets sat behind an
opt-in flag nothing passed, so "the audit is clean" meant nine checks rather than
eleven for a long run of rounds. Both were written and tested and simply never called.
The mouse/thumb pair matters for the same reason: the 44px rule stands itself down
where hover: hover says there is a pointer, and a headless desktop browser is a
pointer, so a single pass had never measured a touch target at any viewport. Between
them they found a 9px seat label at 3.39:1, a 37px-tall amount field and a 30px delete
button on Quick Split.
A check that decides it doesn't apply says so in the output rather than reporting no offenders, which reads identically to a pass. The same goes for the two exemptions that exist: a disabled control, which WCAG itself excuses, and a link inside a sentence, whose size is set by the line it sits in.
Deliberately not in CI: the unit suite is dependency-free and runs in a second, while
this one needs a browser and a running site. Run it after any change that adds or
resizes a control. With no Playwright to hand, paste uiAudit.js into devtools and
call LayoutAudit.runAll().
The contrast check is built so it cannot report a false positive: backgrounds
composite through alpha, and where a gradient is involved every colour stop is tried
and the most flattering one used. A finding means the text fails even under the
reading most generous to it. Two earlier attempts at this got it wrong in both
directions — one read only background-color and scored text on a gradient against
nothing, the other treated low-alpha stops as opaque — so uiAudit.js is checked
against known-answer cases before it is believed.
Touch targets are measured by probing outward with elementFromPoint rather than by
reading the element box, because the box lies in both directions: a small control can
be padded out with a transparent ::after and respond well beyond its painted size,
and a checkbox inside a label is hit by tapping the label. The 44px rule is only
enforced where hover: none says there's no mouse.
It exists because these checks were being re-typed into a console every time something changed, and each time they only covered whatever had just been touched. That is how the standings table shipped with a player-name column zero pixels wide and kept it for two rounds.
Why the randomised suite exists
Every correctness bug found in this tool so far has been shape-dependent: blinds posted to empty chairs, the button skipping past players, heads-up acting out of order, an overbet announced as a side pot. None of them show up on a full six-handed table with equal stacks, which is the table anyone writes a fixed example for.
invariants.test.js deals a thousand hands across random seat counts, random empty
chairs, random stack depths and random dealer input, and checks the things a dealer
would notice being wrong:
- chips are never created or destroyed during play
- the pot breakdown plus the uncalled returns always equal the money that went in
- paying the pot out settles it to the cent
- once uncalled chips are handed back, nobody is still betting above the whole table
- the button and both blinds always land on players who are actually in the hand
The generator is seeded, so a failure reproduces from the seed printed in the message rather than being a flake to re-run.