Skip to content

🎨 Palette: 빈 디렉토리 μƒνƒœ λ©”μ‹œμ§€μ— ARIA μ—­ν•  μΆ”κ°€ - #205

Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
palette/aria-status-empty-dir-3236472452392278134
Closed

🎨 Palette: 빈 디렉토리 μƒνƒœ λ©”μ‹œμ§€μ— ARIA μ—­ν•  μΆ”κ°€#205
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
palette/aria-status-empty-dir-3236472452392278134

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

πŸ’‘ What:

  • src/main/kotlin/html4tree/main.ktμ—μ„œ 빈 디렉토리 μƒνƒœλ₯Ό λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚΄λŠ” <div class="empty-dir">에 role="status"λ₯Ό μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
  • src/test/kotlin/html4tree/MainTest.kt ν…ŒμŠ€νŠΈ νŒŒμΌμ— ν•΄λ‹Ή 속성이 ν¬ν•¨λ˜μ—ˆλŠ”μ§€ κ²€μ¦ν•˜λŠ” Assertion을 μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

🎯 Why:

  • 슀크린 리더 λ“± 보쑰 κΈ°κΈ°λ₯Ό μ‚¬μš©ν•˜λŠ” μ‚¬μš©μžλŠ” μ‹œκ°μ  ν”Όλ“œλ°± 없이 디렉토리 λͺ©λ‘ ꡬ쑰λ₯Ό νƒμƒ‰ν•˜κ²Œ λ©λ‹ˆλ‹€.
  • λͺ©λ‘ λ‚΄μš©μ΄ μ™„μ „νžˆ λΉ„μ–΄μžˆμ„ λ•Œ, λ‹¨μˆœ μž₯μ‹μš© ν…μŠ€νŠΈλ‘œλ§Œ ν‘œμ‹œλ˜λ©΄ 슀크린 리더가 이λ₯Ό ꡬ쑰적인 μƒνƒœ λ³€ν™”λ‘œ μΈμ‹ν•˜μ§€ λͺ»ν•  수 μžˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
  • 이λ₯Ό role="status"λ₯Ό λΆ€μ—¬ν•œ μš”μ†Œμ— λ‹΄μœΌλ©΄, μ‚¬μš©μžκ°€ λ§₯락을 νŒŒμ•…ν•˜λŠ” 데 훨씬 μš©μ΄ν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€.

πŸ“Έ Before/After:

  • Before: <div class="empty-dir">이 λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬λŠ” λΉ„μ–΄ μžˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.</div>
  • After: <div class="empty-dir" role="status">이 λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬λŠ” λΉ„μ–΄ μžˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.</div>

β™Ώ Accessibility:

  • μ‹œκ°μ  μƒνƒœλΏλ§Œ μ•„λ‹ˆλΌ 의미둠적(Semantic)μœΌλ‘œλ„ "μƒνƒœ(Status)" λ©”μ‹œμ§€μž„μ„ 보쑰 기기에 λͺ…ν™•ν•˜κ²Œ μ „λ‹¬ν•˜μ—¬ μ›Ή 접근성을 ν–₯μƒμ‹œμΌ°μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

PR created automatically by Jules for task 3236472452392278134 started by @seonghobae

빈 디렉토리에 ν‘œμ‹œλ˜λŠ” "이 λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬λŠ” λΉ„μ–΄ μžˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€." λ©”μ‹œμ§€λ₯Ό κ°μ‹ΈλŠ” `div`에 `role="status"` ARIA 속성을 μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€. 슀크린 리더 μ‚¬μš©μžκ°€ 포컀슀 이동 없이도 디렉토리 λ‚΄μš©μ΄ λΉ„μ–΄μžˆλ‹€λŠ” λ§₯락을 νŒŒμ•…ν•  수 μžˆλ„λ‘ 접근성을 κ°œμ„ ν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€. ν…ŒμŠ€νŠΈ μ½”λ“œλ„ 이에 맞게 μˆ˜μ •λ˜μ—ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

πŸ‘‹ Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a πŸ‘€ emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.


For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 9c43d41e553a57a4387aa9bede68fe9aef1abdbc.

  • Head SHA: 9c43d41e553a57a4387aa9bede68fe9aef1abdbc

  • Workflow run: 30424208154

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Loading

@opencode-agent

Copy link
Copy Markdown

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 9c43d41e553a57a4387aa9bede68fe9aef1abdbc
  • Workflow run: 30424208154
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 9c43d41e553a57a4387aa9bede68fe9aef1abdbc.

  • Head SHA: 9c43d41e553a57a4387aa9bede68fe9aef1abdbc

  • Workflow run: 30424208154

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Closing as superseded by the protected branch: role="status" and its generated-page assertion are already present. Draft #360 is the single post-#363 path for remaining evidence-based visual/accessibility work. No stale evidence is reused.

@seonghobae seonghobae closed this Aug 5, 2026
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Closing as superseded by the protected branch: role="status" and its generated-page assertion are already present. Draft #360 is the single post-#363 path for remaining evidence-based visual/accessibility work. No stale evidence is reused.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant