Skip to content

🎨 Palette: μ‹œκ°μ  λΉ„ν™œμ„±ν™” 및 λ‘œλ”© μƒνƒœ μΆ”κ°€ - #986

Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
palette/visual-disabled-states-12692316976506553469
Closed

🎨 Palette: μ‹œκ°μ  λΉ„ν™œμ„±ν™” 및 λ‘œλ”© μƒνƒœ μΆ”κ°€#986
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
palette/visual-disabled-states-12692316976506553469

Conversation

@seonghobae

@seonghobae seonghobae commented Aug 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

πŸ’‘ What: Console λŒ€μ‹œλ³΄λ“œμ˜ λ²„νŠΌκ³Ό λ‘œλ”© 쀑인 μš”μ†Œ([aria-busy="true"])에 μ‹œκ°μ  λΉ„ν™œμ„±ν™” μƒνƒœ(투λͺ…도 0.6, not-allowed μ»€μ„œ, 포인터 이벀트 차단)λ₯Ό μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
🎯 Why: μš”μ†Œκ°€ μ‹œλ§¨ν‹±ν•˜κ²ŒλŠ” λΉ„ν™œμ„±ν™”λ˜μ–΄ μžˆκ±°λ‚˜ λ‘œλ”© μƒνƒœμ΄λ”λΌλ„ μ‹œκ°μ μœΌλ‘œ ν‘œμ‹œλ˜μ§€ μ•Šμ•„ μ‚¬μš©μžμ—κ²Œ ν˜Όλ™μ„ μ£Όμ—ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
πŸ“Έ Before/After: μ²¨λΆ€λœ ν”Œλ ˆμ΄λΌμ΄νŠΈ μŠ€ν¬λ¦°μƒ· 및 λΉ„λ””μ˜€ 확인.
β™Ώ Accessibility: ARIA μƒνƒœ(aria-busy)와 μ‹œλ§¨ν‹± μƒνƒœ(:disabled)λ₯Ό μ‹œκ°μ  μŠ€νƒ€μΌκ³Ό λ™κΈ°ν™”ν•˜μ—¬ μ ‘κ·Όμ„±κ³Ό UX의 일관성을 ν™•λ³΄ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 12692316976506553469 started by @seonghobae

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • μ ‘κ·Όμ„± κ°œμ„ 
    • λΉ„ν™œμ„±ν™”λœ λ²„νŠΌκ³Ό λ‘œλ”© 쀑인 μš”μ†Œκ°€ 반투λͺ…ν•˜κ²Œ ν‘œμ‹œλ©λ‹ˆλ‹€.
    • λΉ„ν™œμ„± μƒνƒœμ—μ„œλŠ” μ μ ˆν•œ μ»€μ„œκ°€ ν‘œμ‹œλ˜κ³  클릭 λ“± 포인터 λ™μž‘μ΄ μ°¨λ‹¨λ©λ‹ˆλ‹€.
    • λΉ„ν™œμ„± 및 λ‘œλ”© μƒνƒœλ₯Ό μΌκ΄€λ˜κ²Œ ν‘œν˜„ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•œ μ ‘κ·Όμ„± 지침이 μΆ”κ°€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.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review Change Stack

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. πŸŽ‰

ℹ️ Recent review info
βš™οΈ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: e2239e94-a941-4d9e-881d-e3e8d7036e6d

πŸ“₯ Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a68b57d and cef8cb9.

πŸ“’ Files selected for processing (2)
  • .jules/palette.md
  • scanner/dashboard/console.html

Included review availability: Your plan includes up to 1 review per rolling hour; 0 remain after this review.


πŸ“ Walkthrough

Walkthrough

λΉ„ν™œμ„± 및 λ‘œλ”© μƒνƒœλ₯Ό μœ„ν•œ μ ‘κ·Όμ„± 지침을 μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€. λŒ€μ‹œλ³΄λ“œμ—μ„œ ν•΄λ‹Ή μƒνƒœμ˜ μš”μ†Œλ₯Ό 흐리게 ν‘œμ‹œν•˜κ³  포인터 μž…λ ₯을 μ°¨λ‹¨ν•˜λ„λ‘ CSS κ·œμΉ™μ„ μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

Changes

μ ‘κ·Όμ„± μƒνƒœ μŠ€νƒ€μΌλ§

Layer / File(s) Summary
μƒνƒœ μŠ€νƒ€μΌ μ§€μΉ¨ 및 κ΅¬ν˜„
.jules/palette.md, scanner/dashboard/console.html
:disabled와 [aria-busy="true"] μƒνƒœμ— 뢈투λͺ…도, λΉ„ν™œμ„± μ»€μ„œ, 포인터 이벀트 차단 μŠ€νƒ€μΌμ„ μ μš©ν•˜λ„λ‘ μ§€μΉ¨κ³Ό CSS κ·œμΉ™μ„ μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (μ‚¬μ†Œν•¨) | ~2λΆ„

Merge Risk: βšͺ Minimal Β· up to cef8c

This PR adds visual styling for disabled and loading states without any supplied evidence of an actionable merge-blocking risk; it is merge-ready after normal checks and review.

πŸš₯ Pre-merge checks | βœ… 5
βœ… Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check βœ… Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check βœ… Passed 제λͺ©μ€ μ½˜μ†” λŒ€μ‹œλ³΄λ“œμ— μ‹œκ°μ  λΉ„ν™œμ„±ν™” 및 λ‘œλ”© μƒνƒœλ₯Ό μΆ”κ°€ν•˜λŠ” μ£Όμš” λ³€κ²½ 사항을 λͺ…ν™•ν•˜κ³  κ°„κ²°ν•˜κ²Œ μ„€λͺ…ν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€.
Docstring Coverage βœ… Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check βœ… Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check βœ… Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
✨ Finishing Touches
πŸ§ͺ Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch palette/visual-disabled-states-12692316976506553469

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❀️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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 cef8cb9488f4febe505ba097b7e84e0667ace799.

  • Head SHA: cef8cb9488f4febe505ba097b7e84e0667ace799

  • Workflow run: 32153722673

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Loading

@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Aug 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: cef8cb9488f4febe505ba097b7e84e0667ace799
  • Workflow run: 32162164643
  • 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 cef8cb9488f4febe505ba097b7e84e0667ace799.

  • Head SHA: cef8cb9488f4febe505ba097b7e84e0667ace799

  • Workflow run: 32162164643

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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 cef8cb9488f4febe505ba097b7e84e0667ace799.

  • Head SHA: cef8cb9488f4febe505ba097b7e84e0667ace799

  • Workflow run: 32162164643

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Closing as superseded by #977. This branch adds a global [aria-busy="true"] selector with pointer-events:none; #977’s reviewed interaction contract deliberately separates busy state from unavailable state, reserves pointer blocking for button:disabled and tr.scan[aria-disabled="true"], and pins that distinction with tests and the shared --busy-opacity token. Merging #986 would reintroduce the exact selector #977 forbids and would make in-flight status controls globally non-interactive.

@seonghobae seonghobae closed this Aug 20, 2026
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from Backlog to Done in Security Aug 20, 2026
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Closing as superseded by #977. This branch adds a global [aria-busy="true"] selector with pointer-events:none; #977’s reviewed interaction contract deliberately separates busy state from unavailable state, reserves pointer blocking for button:disabled and tr.scan[aria-disabled="true"], and pins that distinction with tests and the shared --busy-opacity token. Merging #986 would reintroduce the exact selector #977 forbids and would make in-flight status controls globally non-interactive.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is superseded by #977 and stopping work on this task.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Closing as superseded by #977 with #930 as the reconciled security/accessibility predecessor. The successor owns the reusable busy/unavailable token contract and avoids conflating aria-busy with disabled interaction, while also preserving viewer-only authorization, memory-only credentials, escaped identifiers, stale-request handling, and focus restoration. This overlapping CSS-only branch has no distinct buyer outcome.

@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Closing as superseded by #977 with #930 as the reconciled security/accessibility predecessor. The successor owns the reusable busy/unavailable token contract and avoids conflating aria-busy with disabled interaction, while also preserving viewer-only authorization, memory-only credentials, escaped identifiers, stale-request handling, and focus restoration. This overlapping CSS-only branch has no distinct buyer outcome.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is superseded by #977 and #930, 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

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant