Requested by a user who found xx.xx% more trustworthy than xx.x% on their
status page. The presentational argument holds, but the stronger reason is
that one decimal was actively misleading.
Intl rounds to the displayed precision, so every value above 99.95% rendered
as "100.0%" — a claim of zero downtime for a period that contained real
outages. On a public status page that is the opposite of reassuring: the
number reads as flawless during a month with a visible incident.
One decimal also collapsed the range operators care about most. 99.9%,
99.95% and 99.99% are three very different commitments (8.7 hours, 4.4 hours
and 52 minutes of annual downtime) and the first rendered as 99.9% while the
other two were indistinguishable at 100.0%.
Everything flows through the shared formatter in FormatUtils, so this covers
both surfaces at once: the monitor list and diagnostics gauges in the web
app, and the uptime figure, chart cells and hover tooltip on status pages.
Infrastructure gauges are untouched — they format separately at zero
decimals, where CPU at "43.00%" would only add noise.
Server-side precision was already sufficient; the aggregation divides
without rounding, so no API change is needed.
Adds tests pinning the regression: 7 of the 10 fail against the previous
one-decimal formatter.
Note: this restores the client Vitest setup. PR #3844 introduced it, but the
config, scripts and logger tests were dropped when that branch merged into
develop, leaving the client with no test runner again.
gorkem-bwl
68c1f2e281