Each of the four cases asserted only that the message named the target. Every
one of those paths meets "web: no emcc on PATH" first on a machine with no
emscripten, which also names the target — so on exactly the machine where none
of the refusals ran, all four would have reported that they did. Each case now
names the phrase it expects.
test_web.ml never opens a browser and never will. What it asserts is the shape
a browser needs — three files, a module that starts with the wasm magic, a
page that references its own JS and carries the canvas — plus the one
execution available without a DOM: node runs the emitted JS and gets "ok".
For raylib it builds core-basic-window.flan unchanged, which is the claim, and
then reads the module for the two things that would be false if the mechanism
were wrong: an asyncify_start_unwind export, and a glViewport import that can
only have come from raylib's web platform. Import and export names are plain
strings in the binary, so this needs no wasm reader.
Both halves probe rather than assume, the way the wasm32 case does: emscripten
may not be installed and the raylib archive is not in the tree, and a missing
piece is a skip with the reason.
The four refusals are asserted by name — --dev, --debug, --sanitize,
Build.shared, and flan run --target=web from the CLI — because "it falls out
of the existing predicate" is the kind of thing that stops being true quietly.
