🎨 Palette: [일괄 업로드 시 총 파일 용량에 대한 인라인 유효성 검사 추가]

[seonghobae]

💡 What: 일괄 파일 업로드 폼(saas_web.py)에서 여러 파일을 선택할 때, 선택된 파일들의 총 용량이 서버 업로드 제한(5 GiB)을 초과하는지 확인하는 인라인 클라이언트 측 유효성 검사를 추가했습니다.
🎯 Why: 이전에는 파일 개수 제한(20개)만 검사하고 총 파일 용량은 검사하지 않아, 사용자가 5 GiB를 초과하는 파일들을 선택하고 제출을 누른 후에야 서버 응답을 통해 에러를 알 수 있었습니다. 이는 긴 대기 시간을 초래하고 사용자 경험을 저하시키는 문제가 있었습니다.
📸 Before/After: 총 용량이 5 GiB를 넘어도 미리보기 텍스트에 오류가 표시되지 않고 파란색 글씨로 파일 크기만 표시되었으나, 이제 빨간색 경고 메시지와 함께 입력 필드에 에러 상태가 표시됩니다.
♿ Accessibility: 유효성 검사 실패 시 동적으로 aria-invalid='true' 속성을 부여하고 빨간색 텍스트와 테두리를 통해 화면 낭독기 및 시각적 피드백을 강화했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 16415228137044618791 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

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

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 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]

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 440c33e902cd81c4135b05e0fba668600eb5628c.

• Head SHA: 440c33e902cd81c4135b05e0fba668600eb5628c

• Workflow run: 30558182507

• 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]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 440c33e902cd81c4135b05e0fba668600eb5628c
• Workflow run: 30558182507
• 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 440c33e902cd81c4135b05e0fba668600eb5628c.

• Head SHA: 440c33e902cd81c4135b05e0fba668600eb5628c

• Workflow run: 30558182507

• 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

[seonghobae]

Closed as a duplicate of #272. #272 is the canonical aggregate-size validation PR because it derives the display limit from MAX_UPLOAD_BYTES, includes a focused test surface, and now has an explicit repair plan for the outstanding semantic-test, message-maintainability, accessibility, and CHANGELOG review findings. Keeping one branch prevents duplicate CI and divergent error semantics.

[google-labs-jules]

Closed as a duplicate of #272. #272 is the canonical aggregate-size validation PR because it derives the display limit from MAX_UPLOAD_BYTES, includes a focused test surface, and now has an explicit repair plan for the outstanding semantic-test, message-maintainability, accessibility, and CHANGELOG review findings. Keeping one branch prevents duplicate CI and divergent error semantics.

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