merge: fold the #569 review fixes into the alias-aware layout rows

Four commits landed on this branch from review while the layout wiring was in
progress, and the two solved overlapping problems differently.

Theirs made elementKeys() append every layout-only key, matched by exact name.
Against football that also lists `score` and `odds` -- entries the alias
resolution already pairs with score_text and odds_text -- so those offsets
would get two controls posting the same field. The row split here
(styleRows via core's x-layout-key, positionRows for what nothing claims)
replaces that append; elementKeys() is back to listing style elements only.

Theirs also covered cases this side had missed, all kept:
- A leaf straight under layout (a show_logo toggle, no x/y object) now gets a
  position row with a self-keyed column bound to customization.layout.<key>.
  Core no longer lets an element claim a leaf as its offsets.
- Leaf columns keep their namespaced id, so a leaf sharing a name with another
  entry's axis cannot be shadowed.
- columnsFor(schema) still works with one argument (every row), so their
  column tests run unchanged.
- The owned key is CSS.escape()'d before it becomes a selector.

test_style_editor_element_keys.js is rewritten for the new contract, and says
why the old one had to go. All six JS suites pass; in a browser football's 92
layout fields each render once, and a synthetic leaf -- including one named
`scale` alongside a `scale` axis -- gets exactly one correctly named control.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

test/js/unit/test_style_editor_element_keys.js

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+// Regression test for how style-editor.js decides which rows to draw,
+// extracted verbatim from the shipped widget (own/ownObj/elementKeys/
+// styleRows/positionRows have no DOM dependency) so the test can't drift from
+// the real implementation.
+//
+// render() claims the whole `layout` child of a customization schema as the
+// widget's own -- removing it from the generic fallback renderer entirely,
+// because posting the same offset twice from two controls is worse than
+// owning slightly too much. That is only safe when every entry under `layout`
+// gets exactly one row:
+//
+//   * styleRows(): one per style element, paired with the layout entry that
+//     holds its offsets. The pairing is not by exact name -- a hand-written
+//     schema styles 'score_text' but positions 'score' -- so core records it
+//     as x-layout-key, resolved through the same alias map the renderer reads
+//     offsets with.
+//   * positionRows(): one per layout entry no style element claimed -- a logo,
+//     a timeout indicator, a possession arrow, or a bare leaf like a
+//     show_logo toggle.
+//
+// This contract replaced an earlier one in which elementKeys() itself
+// appended layout-only keys. That compared names exactly, so an aliased entry
+// ('score' for 'score_text') was listed a second time and its offsets got two
+// controls posting the same field.
+const fs = require('fs');
+const path = require('path');
+const V3 = path.resolve(__dirname, '../../../web_interface/static/v3');
+
+const src = fs.readFileSync(path.join(V3, 'js/widgets/style-editor.js'), 'utf8');
+const start = src.indexOf('function own(obj, key)');
+const endMark = 'function control(opts)';
+const end = src.indexOf(endMark);
+if (start === -1 || end === -1) {
+  console.error('FAIL: could not locate own()..positionRows() in style-editor.js -- slice markers need updating');
+  process.exit(1);
+}
+eval(src.slice(start, end)); // defines own/ownObj/elementKeys/styleRows/positionRows
+
+let failures = 0;
+function ok(desc, cond) {
+  if (cond) { console.log(`ok - ${desc}`); }
+  else { console.log(`FAIL - ${desc}`); failures++; }
+}
+
+function layoutKeysOf(rows) { return rows.map(function (r) { return r.layoutKey; }); }
+
+// score_text is styled and positioned under an alias; odds_text has no
+// offsets at all; possession is positioned but never styled; show_logo is a
+// bare leaf under layout.
+const schema = {
+  properties: {
+    score_text: {
+      type: 'object', 'x-style-managed': true, 'x-layout-key': 'score',
+      properties: { font: { type: 'string' }, text_color: { type: 'array' } },
+    },
+    odds_text: {
+      type: 'object', 'x-style-managed': true,
+      properties: { font: { type: 'string' } },
+    },
+    layout: {
+      type: 'object',
+      'x-propertyOrder': ['score', 'possession', 'show_logo'],
+      properties: {
+        score: { type: 'object', properties: { x_offset: {}, y_offset: {} } },
+        possession: { type: 'object', properties: { x_offset: {}, y_offset: {} } },
+        show_logo: { type: 'boolean', default: true },
+      },
+    },
+  },
+};
+
+const keys = elementKeys(schema);
+ok('elementKeys lists the style elements', keys.join(',') === 'score_text,odds_text');
+ok('layout and modes containers are never treated as elements',
+   keys.indexOf('layout') === -1 && keys.indexOf('modes') === -1);
+
+const styled = styleRows(schema);
+ok('a style element is paired with the layout entry core resolved for it',
+   styled[0].key === 'score_text' && styled[0].layoutKey === 'score');
+ok('a style element with no offsets claims nothing', styled[1].layoutKey === null);
+
+const positions = positionRows(schema);
+ok('a layout-only object entry gets a position row',
+   layoutKeysOf(positions).indexOf('possession') !== -1);
+ok('a layout-only leaf gets a position row too',
+   layoutKeysOf(positions).indexOf('show_logo') !== -1);
+ok('an entry claimed through an alias is not listed again as a position',
+   layoutKeysOf(positions).indexOf('score') === -1);
+ok('positions follow the declared order',
+   layoutKeysOf(positions).join(',') === 'possession,show_logo');
+
+const every = layoutKeysOf(styled).filter(Boolean).concat(layoutKeysOf(positions));
+ok('every layout entry gets exactly one row',
+   every.length === new Set(every).size
+   && every.slice().sort().join(',') === ['possession', 'score', 'show_logo'].join(','));
+
+// A schema with no layout block at all must behave exactly as before --
+// the overwhelmingly common case must not gain a phantom row.
+const noLayout = {
+  properties: {
+    score_text: {
+      type: 'object', 'x-style-managed': true,
+      properties: { font: { type: 'string' } },
+    },
+  },
+};
+ok('a schema without a layout block has no positions',
+   elementKeys(noLayout).join(',') === 'score_text' && positionRows(noLayout).length === 0);
+
+// Without an annotation (the compact declaration, or a schema that never went
+// through expansion) the two blocks share one key.
+const unannotated = {
+  properties: {
+    home_logo: { type: 'object', 'x-style-managed': true, properties: {} },
+    layout: {
+      type: 'object',
+      properties: { home_logo: { type: 'object', properties: { x_offset: {}, scale: {} } } },
+    },
+  },
+};
+ok('an exact-name layout entry is claimed without an annotation',
+   styleRows(unannotated)[0].layoutKey === 'home_logo'
+   && positionRows(unannotated).length === 0);
+
+if (failures) { console.log(`\n${failures} failure(s)`); process.exit(1); }
+console.log('\nall checks passed');