Chained straights run on; the first action starts the route; a route runs from its start (4.18.0)

[1e0ng]

What users reported, and what was behind it

1. "If you enable continue on a straight it still stops." The engine chains moves correctly (a carrying move ends at cruise; the next straight or curve starts from the current speed). The planner was the problem: two straights clicked roughly in line differ by a degree or two, so the program inserted robot.turn(2.3) between them, and a turn in place stops. Now a straight's end clicked within 7.5° of the heading the robot arrives with lands exactly on that heading, in the rubber band and when placed. Shift keeps any angle.

2. "Show the program also shows the program of going there." With the chassis at the map's spawn and the route drawn elsewhere, the program opened with # to its start: the drive there plus a turn and a long straight. Now the first action placed on an empty route starts it: the chassis goes to where that action begins, facing its way. Dragging the chassis afterwards still sets another start, and the drive there is inserted as before.

3. Found while reproducing: the run server runs a script from wherever the robot stands, so a second ▶ Run route set off from where the first run ended. Run route now places the chassis at the route's start first.

Tests

• route.rs: the heading snap (ahead, a real angle, any heading, behind, on the spot) and a program of two snapped straights with no turn.
• simulate.rs: chained placement through clicks (the rubber band's label, the placed end, then=Stop.NONE followed directly by the next straight, a real angle kept, shift keeping any angle), the first action placing the chassis and not when it begins at the chassis, and the run sending place before run.
• app.rs: shift in the map view sets the flag.

Full sim suite green locally, fmt and clippy clean. Docs updated and offline-docs.zip rebuilt (source hash matches). Version 4.18.0.

The third report, "the curve is hard to control", is not in this PR; see the session summary for what I found and the options.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_016higr4k4yNohYeKod1f1HY

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 97.29730% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 96.41%. Comparing base (21f744c) to head (7019f64).
⚠️ Report is 182 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
tools/sim/src/simulate.rs	95.87%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #521      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.72%   96.41%   +0.68%     
==========================================
  Files          50       81      +31     
  Lines        5192    23920   +18728     
==========================================
+ Hits         4970    23062   +18092     
- Misses        222      858     +636     

Flag	Coverage Δ
c-core	97.53% <ø> (+2.02%)	⬆️
openbricks-dev	99.77% <100.00%> (+0.74%)	⬆️
openbricks-py	97.03% <100.00%> (+1.27%)	⬆️
openbricks-sim	96.25% <ø> (+3.08%)	⬆️
sim-rs	95.67% <97.26%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.