00a4ef20df2c13f7bab90a3b9a6ca2b4d72e386d
3 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
MechaCat02
|
07d83c4229 |
fix(port): held_direction() polls the stick instead of reconstructing it
Reported by a human on a real controller: hold the left stick down, the cursor moves one item and stops. The repeat never runs. `held_direction()`'s own comment says "Polled at the DEVICE, never through Input.is_action_pressed". It was not. The d-pad and keyboard branches polled; the STICK branch read `_latched`, which is a reconstruction of the stick's position from the event history. That reconstruction is only as good as the last event seen. A stick held still sends nothing, and one event reading below RELEASE -- a spring settling, a deadzone-shaped value, a driver emitting a zero on focus change -- clears it with no event afterwards to set it back. The port then believes the stick is centred while the player is holding it, which is precisely the symptom reported. Now polls `Input.get_joy_axis()` against the game's own 0.61, which is what the comment always meant. The latch stays as a fallback for INJECTED events, so the script harness and verify-input keep testing something. 🔴 Every instrument here missed this because every instrument SUPPLIES the input it measures: verify-input ticks repeat_due() directly, --script sends InputEventAction which bypasses the input map, and the new --script=hold: injects its own axis event. All three agreed with each other and none read a device. Same shape as the 2026-09-01 report that opened gamepad.gd, one level deeper, with the lesson already written at the top of that file. So this adds the two things that would have caught it: --script=hold:down:2.0 hold one real axis deflection and log every move --input-probe print what the devices report, on change ⚠️ The fix itself is NOT verified. It matches the symptom exactly and was found by reading, but only a human holding a stick can confirm it, and the probe exists so the answer is measured either way. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
MechaCat02
|
c0c649c5dd |
feat(port): adopt the measured held-direction repeat rate (F1)
REPEAT_DELAY = 0.402, REPEAT_INTERVAL = 0.134, from docs/re/f1-repeat-measured-via-driver-patch.md -- 12 and 4 frames at the run's achieved 29.87 fps guest rate, converted to seconds because this port does not run at the guest's rate and it is the cadence that was measured. The mechanism has been here since 2026-09-02 and inert on purpose. The instruction it was waiting on is now vindicated in the most awkward way: the draft it refused to ship had 0.40 / 0.20, so the guessed delay was nearly right and the guessed interval was off by 50 %. The half that was wrong would have been protected by the half that was right. The delay and the interval are NOT equally well evidenced, and the code says so at the constants. No physical controller exists in the Decoder's container, so the measurement fed Canary's file driver the SDL driver's own 400/100 ms constants: the 402 ms that came back is the constant that went in, and confirms the instrument. The 133 ms interval against a fed-in 100 ms is the new fact -- the game paces repeats to its own frame consumption. One run; the two-run minimum is not met and the finding says so itself. Also: the prediction that this would turn verify-input's "a held stick is ONE step, not six" red was wrong. It stayed green, because steps() never advances a clock and so had never called repeat_due() at all -- the rate was about to ship into a harness with no coverage of the feature, with a green line that would have been read as coverage. So verify-input gains a `repeat` subject: nothing before the delay, the first repeat on the delay, the steady interval, cadence independent of frame rate (the code claims this in a comment, so it is now asserted), and a direction change restarting the delay. Each asserts THESE numbers, not the shape -- a shape-only check would have passed on 0.40 / 0.20. The control removes the premise, a held direction, and every controllable row inverts. The first-repeat row measures from the arming tick, not from t=0: that tick is the frame the press is handled, which is the origin the finding measures its 12 frames from. Measured from zero it read 0.433 vs 0.402 and the tolerance would have had to be widened to hide a units mismatch. Closes #2 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
MechaCat02
|
c3758e3850 |
port: land the play-tested work, and only that
Takes the port branch up to |