80 findings, not the 14 the first run showed -- clippy stops at the first
failing compilation unit, so `--keep-going` is what makes the list complete.
60 were machine-applicable (`cargo clippy --fix`). The rest by hand:
* five descending `sort_by` -> `sort_by_key(Reverse(..))`
* `chunks_exact(4)` on both sides of four zips, so the compared items stay
`[u8; 4]` rather than one array against one slice
* three `type` aliases for the census maps and the captured-quad tuple
* `&PathBuf` -> `&Path` in two disc tests
* two range loops; one of them keeps `#[allow(needless_range_loop)]` with the
reason -- the index is into a map's value, which changes each iteration
* the module doc list in `invert_capture` re-indented to markdown's rules
* `blit`'s eight arguments get `#[allow(too_many_arguments)]`, not a struct
One dead `let off = b.len();` in a `ratc` test is dropped rather than renamed.
The sibling test at :162 is the one that asserts an offset; if this one was
meant to as well, that is a test change and not a lint fix.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The port agent produced a genuine second witness for the pixel-cost claim: it
re-checked GP_TITLE entry 12 in Godot, which shares no code with compose,
swapping only paint_order. 59 530 px ink with the rule, exactly 0 without it.
The strong form -- the screen ceasing to exist, not merely changing a lot --
now has two real renderers behind it on that entry.
Its figures did not match ours, so I counted the same composite every way:
RGB > 0 ours 49 771 Godot 59 530 16 % apart
RGB > 1 ours 48 043 Godot 48 368 0.68 % apart
The entire disagreement lives in pixels whose value is exactly 1. That is a
1-LSB sampling artefact between two samplers, not a different set of inked
pixels. So '>0' is not a portable ink convention between renderers on a
mostly-dark frame and '>1' is; any future cross-renderer ink figure should say
which it used.
Also worth recording: our 49 771 was never a threshold figure. It is exact RGBA
inequality between the two paint orders, which over a black backdrop coincides
with ink>0 -- so it belongs against the port's 59 530, not its 48 368. Matching
it to the 48 368 would have made the two renderers look like they agreed for
the wrong reason.
The without-the-rule column is 0 at every threshold here too, matching Godot:
the strong form is not threshold-sensitive in either renderer.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
