The row's grid template still described the pre-0.9.2 layout — six
columns including an address cell that no longer exists — while the row
renders five. Every cell therefore sat one column left of where it
belonged: copy landed in the label's space, the amount in the old label
column, and the ⋯ in the amount column instead of the edge. That is the
whole cause of "the copy button collides with the amount" and "the last
edit button is not on the edge".
Now five columns for five cells: icon · label · copy · amount · menu,
8px gaps. The label is the flexible one, left-aligned, so it takes the
slack and truncates rather than squeezing the number. Verified at 520,
400 and 300px: no cell overlap at any width, no row overflow, and the
amount never clips — only long labels give way.
The copy glyph was the 📋 emoji, which has no glyph in this platform's
font stack and rendered as a tofu box that read like a stray character
stuck to the balance. Replaced with an inline SVG in both the row and
the address card. Both confirmation flashes now swap innerHTML rather
than textContent, which would have deleted the SVG and left a blank
square.
Address card: the address and its copy button share one row, so the
button sits at the end of the value it copies. The address clamps to two
lines and truncates beyond that instead of growing the card in a narrow
sidebar.
The QR is always visible and the panel is drag-resizable from a grip
under it (pointer events, arrow keys as a non-mouse path, clamped
90–420px, capped against the panel's own width so a size set on a wide
sidebar cannot overflow a narrow one, persisted). That replaces the
0.9.2 show/hide toggle — a size set once beats a binary, and it frees
the row Copy was sharing with a QR button.
drawQr was setting cv.style.width/height, which would have reset the
panel to its intrinsic size on every redraw — i.e. every time the
address changed. It now sets only the backing store and re-asserts the
user's size after drawing.
"Next unused address" is correct at the adapter level on both mainnet
and chipnet (tested: the index advances and the address changes), so the
reported failure is elsewhere. The handler was discarding the error and
flashing a bare "Failed", which is why there was nothing to diagnose; it
now surfaces the real message.
4c7d8e3f56