jheapsandClaude Opus 5
6fa4532781
Contrast is the one check I've got wrong twice, both times by being clever about backgrounds. The first version read only background-color, so text on any of the gradient-painted sheets was measured against transparency and the dealer puck's dark "D" was reported at 1.2:1 against nothing. The second over-corrected and treated low-alpha gradient stops as opaque, scoring white-on-dark at 1.0:1. So this one is built to be incapable of false positives rather than exact. Backgrounds composite through alpha; 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. It's checked against known answers before being believed: black on white at 21:1, white on white at 1:1, #767676 on white at the 4.54:1 AA boundary, white over a dark gradient, dark text on that same gradient, white over a 6% white wash on a near-black page. Nine cases, all correct — and building them found a real bug in the check, which walked past an opaque gradient and offered the page background as a candidate. That made it too lenient, which is as bad as the old false positives. What it found: Both blind badges failed against their own gradients, in 9px bold text a dealer reads at a glance across a table. At the worst stop: small blind 3.52:1, big blind 2.15:1. The small blind keeps its blue and darkens to 4.77:1. The big blind flips to dark text on brighter gold, 5.84:1 — how a gold chip is marked anyway, and it makes the two badges far easier to tell apart at speed. Quick Split's footnote names a control the dealer is told to reach for, and that name inherited the muted grey of the surrounding aside: 3.39:1. Emphasised text carrying an instruction gets its own colour now. The felt watermark came back at 1.19:1 and is meant to. It's decoration; holding it to a reading threshold would mean making it not a watermark. It's aria-hidden now, which says the same thing where it also does some good, and the audit skips aria-hidden subtrees. 32 contrast passes over the table, all five overlays and Quick Split at five viewports: zero findings, zero unmeasured. Layout audit still clean. 137 tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015bnp7xKUPFFSpwkYNFaPgb
3.8 KiB
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-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.
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.
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.