test: automated responsive-layout harness (closes #13)

Verifies the mobile layout from #5 with a real browser engine instead of
by hand on a phone. make frontend-viewport-test builds dist/, serves it
from the same digest-pinned nginx image and the same nginx.conf the
shipping container uses, and drives a digest-pinned headless Chrome
against it over CDP.

Viewport widths are derived from the app's own CSS rather than from a
list of phone models: the @media conditions in src/styles.css and any
Tailwind responsive prefixes in the markup are parsed, and each
breakpoint is tested one pixel below, exactly on, and one pixel above.
max-width: 768px matches at 768, and a generic 375px test sails past
that boundary entirely. Four anchor viewports are added with stated
reasons: a 320px floor, a desktop baseline, and two phone-landscape
sizes straddling the breakpoint.

Assertions are on computed layout, not screenshots: horizontal overflow,
elements past the viewport edge, clipped text (deliberate ellipsis
truncation excluded), 44x44 minimum tap targets, and genuine reflow of
the host rows checked on both flex-direction and geometry. Probing and
gateway detection are asserted to still run at narrow widths, since the
early-return mobile path rejected in #8 is what would silently regress.
Screenshots are written to tmp/viewport/ as artifacts alongside the
results, not as the evidence.

puppeteer-core rather than playwright: it is the one variant of either
that never downloads or bundles a browser, so the browser stays a
digest-pinned image and the npm side is pinned by yarn.lock integrity.

The browser container runs on an --internal docker network with no route
off the host; the harness answers the app's latency probes itself from a
fixed delay table so the rows render a realistic spread of value widths.

Kept out of make check: it needs Docker and takes minutes, where make
test has to stay under 20 seconds.

The harness was observed failing before being trusted, twice: a planted
900px fixed-width element in a host row, and the mobile reflow rule
neutered. Both reverted.

Against the current layout it reports two real defects, filed as #42
(horizontal overflow at 320px) and #43 (tap targets below 44x44).

test/viewport/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# Responsive-layout harness
+
+Automated verification of the responsive layout that landed in #5. Run it with:
+
+```bash
+make frontend-viewport-test
+```
+
+It builds `dist/`, serves it from the same digest-pinned `nginx` image and the
+same `nginx.conf` the shipping container uses, drives a digest-pinned headless
+Chrome against it over CDP, and asserts on computed layout at every viewport
+width derived from the app's own CSS. Screenshots land in `tmp/viewport/`
+alongside a `results.json`; they are artifacts for a human to look at when
+something fails, not the evidence. The assertions are the evidence.
+
+The target is deliberately outside `make check`: it needs Docker and takes
+minutes, and `make test` has to stay under 20 seconds.
+
+## How the widths are chosen
+
+Not from a list of phone models. `viewports.js` parses the `@media` conditions
+out of `src/styles.css` and scans `src/main.js` and `index.html` for Tailwind
+responsive prefixes, then tests every breakpoint it finds at one pixel below it,
+exactly on it, and one pixel above it. A generic 375px "phone" test sails
+straight past an off-by-one at a media query boundary; `max-width: 768px`
+matches _at_ 768, and the sweep pins down which side of that line each layout is
+on.
+
+Nothing hardcodes 768. Add a second media block or start using `md:` classes and
+the new breakpoint is covered without this directory being touched. Four further
+viewports are fixed anchors, each with a stated reason: a 320px floor, a 1280px
+desktop baseline, and two phone-landscape sizes straddling the breakpoint for
+the rotation case.
+
+## What it asserts
+
+- **app-rendered** — enough host rows exist and enough of them show a numeric
+  latency. This one exists so the rest cannot pass vacuously against a blank
+  page.
+- **no-horizontal-overflow** — `documentElement.scrollWidth` fits the layout
+  viewport, with the widest offending element named.
+- **nothing-past-viewport-edge** — no visible element's box extends past the
+  viewport edge.
+- **no-clipped-text** — nothing hides text behind `overflow: hidden`. Deliberate
+  ellipsis truncation (Tailwind's `truncate`, used on host names and URLs) is
+  excluded: it is a design choice, not breakage.
+- **tap-targets-44px** — every interactive control is at least 44x44 CSS px on
+  touch viewports. See below.
+- **host-rows-stacked / host-rows-side-by-side** — the rows genuinely reflow.
+  Computed `flex-direction` _and_ the actual geometry are checked, and in the
+  narrow layout the info block and the sparkline must each occupy essentially
+  the full row width. A row that merely shrank its 420px column would fail.
+- **probing-still-runs / gateway-detection-still-runs** — narrow viewports keep
+  probing and keep detecting the gateway. The mobile early-return path proposed
+  in #8 was rejected; this is what would catch it coming back.
+
+### The tap-target threshold
+
+44x44 CSS px. That is the figure in Apple's Human Interface Guidelines and in
+WCAG 2.2 SC 2.5.5 "Target Size (Enhanced)". WCAG 2.2 SC 2.5.8 (level AA) sets a
+lower 24x24 floor, but that floor comes with a spacing exception these controls
+do not qualify for — the pin buttons sit directly against the host name they
+belong to.
+
+## Determinism
+
+The browser container runs on an `--internal` docker network and has no route to
+the internet, so the app's latency probes cannot reach anything real. The
+harness answers them itself from a fixed delay table, with a deterministic
+fraction failed outright, so the rows render a realistic spread of one-, two-
+and three-digit latencies plus some unreachable rows. That spread is what the
+layout has to survive; 24 identical `---` placeholders would not exercise it.
+
+## What this cannot verify
+
+Real limits, so nobody re-parks this issue as needing hardware:
+
+- **Non-Chromium engines.** This is Chrome. iOS Safari is WebKit and cannot be
+  emulated by it; Safari-specific bugs (viewport units under a collapsing URL
+  bar, `-webkit-fill-available`, form control metrics) will not show up here.
+- **Real touch input.** `hasTouch` emulation changes what the page is told, not
+  how a finger behaves. Gesture handling, scroll momentum, double-tap zoom and
+  hover-state fallbacks on touch are out of scope.
+- **Physical pixel density and rendering.** `deviceScaleFactor` is set, but
+  subpixel antialiasing, OLED colour rendering and actual legibility at a given
+  physical size are not measurable here.
+- **Fonts.** The container has DejaVu, not the platform's own UI monospace. Text
+  metrics are therefore close to, but not identical to, a real device — a layout
+  that fits here by a few pixels might not there.
+- **On-device performance.** Canvas sparkline redraw cost, battery, and
+  behaviour on a slow radio are not measured.
+- **Browser chrome.** The address bar, safe-area insets and notch cutouts are
+  not simulated.
+
+Everything else this issue was actually about — does the layout reflow, does
+anything overflow, is content clipped, are the controls big enough — is a
+function of viewport width and CSS, and is covered above.
+
+## Relation to the unit test framework (#21)
+
+Complementary layers, not two stacks. `vitest` (#21) will exercise module-level
+logic in-process with no browser. This harness exercises rendered layout in a
+real engine and is the only thing here that can see a media query. Neither
+replaces the other; assertions about computed styles and element geometry belong
+here, assertions about functions belong in `vitest`.