Skip to content

🎨 Palette: [μ ‘κ·Όμ„± κ°œμ„ ] 빈 디렉토리 이름에 λŒ€ν•œ 폴백 μΆ”κ°€ - #208

Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
palette-fallback-empty-dir-name-6033876254401964351
Closed

🎨 Palette: [μ ‘κ·Όμ„± κ°œμ„ ] 빈 디렉토리 이름에 λŒ€ν•œ 폴백 μΆ”κ°€#208
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
palette-fallback-empty-dir-name-6033876254401964351

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

πŸ’‘ What (enhancement added): 루트 λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬μ²˜λŸΌ 이름이 λΉ„μ–΄μžˆλŠ” 경우(예: File.getName() == "") <title> 및 <h1> λ Œλ”λ§ μ‹œ λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬μ˜ μ ˆλŒ€ 경둜(absolutePath)λ₯Ό 폴백으둜 ν‘œμ‹œν•˜λ„λ‘ κ°œμ„ ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
🎯 Why (user problem solved): ν™”λ©΄ νŒλ…κΈ° μ‚¬μš©μžλŠ” 빈 제λͺ©κ³Ό 헀딩을 λ§Œλ‚˜λ©΄ ν˜„μž¬ μ»¨ν…μŠ€νŠΈλ₯Ό μ „ν˜€ 이해할 수 μ—†μœΌλ©°, μ‹œκ°μ  μ‚¬μš©μžλ„ 빈 νŽ˜μ΄μ§€ 제λͺ©κ³Ό 상단 제λͺ©μœΌλ‘œ 인해 ν˜Όλž€μ„ κ²ͺμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€. 이 폴백 μΆ”κ°€λ‘œ 인해 λͺ¨λ“  μ‚¬μš©μžκ°€ 의미 μžˆλŠ” μ»¨ν…μŠ€νŠΈλ₯Ό 얻을 수 μžˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
πŸ“Έ Before/After (screenshots if visual): (ν•΄λ‹Ή μ—†μŒ: ν…μŠ€νŠΈ 및 μ‹œλ§¨ν‹± μ½˜ν…μΈ μ˜ 생성 λ³€κ²½)
β™Ώ Accessibility (a11y improvements made): 빈 <title> 및 <h1> νƒœκ·Έ λ Œλ”λ§μ„ λ°©μ§€ν•˜μ—¬ 슀크린 리더 ν™˜κ²½μ˜ 접근성을 ν–₯μƒμ‹œμΌ°μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 6033876254401964351 started by @seonghobae

디렉토리 이름을 기반으둜 HTML을 생성할 λ•Œ, 루트 λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬μ²˜λŸΌ File.getName()이 빈 λ¬Έμžμ—΄μ„ λ°˜ν™˜ν•˜λŠ” 경우 <title> 및 <h1> νƒœκ·Έκ°€ λ‚΄μš© 없이 λ Œλ”λ§λ˜μ–΄ μ ‘κ·Όμ„±κ³Ό μ‚¬μš©μ„±μ„ μ €ν•΄ν•˜λŠ” λ¬Έμ œκ°€ μžˆμ—ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

디렉토리 이름이 λΉ„μ–΄μžˆμ„ λ•Œ μ ˆλŒ€ 경둜λ₯Ό 폴백으둜 μ‚¬μš©ν•˜λ„λ‘ μˆ˜μ •ν•˜μ—¬, 슀크린 리더와 일반 μ‚¬μš©μžμ—κ²Œ 항상 의미 μžˆλŠ” 디렉토리 이름을 μ œκ³΅ν•˜λ„λ‘ κ°œμ„ ν–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 686bc1948b7c149af66de008a89d8be6be02124e.

  • Head SHA: 686bc1948b7c149af66de008a89d8be6be02124e

  • Workflow run: 30424214593

  • 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: 686bc1948b7c149af66de008a89d8be6be02124e
  • Workflow run: 30424214593
  • 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 686bc1948b7c149af66de008a89d8be6be02124e.

  • Head SHA: 686bc1948b7c149af66de008a89d8be6be02124e

  • Workflow run: 30424214593

  • 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 draft canonical #364. The identical absolute-path fallback for empty root names is retained there under a bounded post-#363 accessibility contract. #364 must still consolidate one escaped label, test generated root/non-root pages, add APA 7 doctoring and changelog, and pass fresh exact-head gates plus independent approval. No evidence from this duplicate head is reused.

@seonghobae seonghobae closed this Aug 5, 2026
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