marcel/familienarchiv
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 110 Pull Requests 1 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

test(stammbaum): assert no node sits between AC2 spouses on same y (#361)

Browse Source 
Cycle-2 follow-up from Sara. The existing assertion
`Math.abs(posA2.x - posB2.x) === NODE_W + COL_GAP` proves adjacency in
the current integer-slot packer but would silently pass if a future
refactor moved to fractional offsets with a third node squatting at a
non-slot x between the spouses. The added loop closes that contract.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Marcel
2026-05-28 20:55:23 +02:00
parent b8ad64dd13
commit 89bb0b5d65
1 changed files with 13 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

13
frontend/src/lib/person/genealogy/layout/buildLayout.test.ts
View File

@@ -266,6 +266,19 @@ describe('buildLayout — multi-spouse ordering (#361)', () => {
const posB2 = layout.positions.get(B2)!;
expect(posA2.y).toBe(posB2.y);
expect(Math.abs(posA2.x - posB2.x)).toBe(NODE_W + COL_GAP);
// Tighter contract (Sara's cycle-2 follow-up): no third node may sit
// at an x strictly between the two spouses on the same y. The integer-
// slot adjacency check above (==NODE_W+COL_GAP) is correct today but
// would silently pass if a future layout change introduced fractional
// offsets and placed a node at a non-slot x between the spouses.
const minX = Math.min(posA2.x, posB2.x);
const maxX = Math.max(posA2.x, posB2.x);
for (const [id, p] of layout.positions) {
if (id === A2 || id === B2) continue;
if (p.y !== posA2.y) continue;
expect(p.x <= minX || p.x >= maxX).toBe(true);
}
});
it('canonical_fixture_multi_spouse_falls_through_to_displayName_when_no_fromYear', () => {