Skip to content

🎨 Palette: ν‚€λ³΄λ“œ 탐색 μ ‘κ·Όμ„± ν–₯상을 μœ„ν•œ main μš”μ†Œ focus-visible μŠ€νƒ€μΌ μΆ”κ°€ - #184

Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
jules-report-focus-visible-5331173489400574015
Closed

🎨 Palette: ν‚€λ³΄λ“œ 탐색 μ ‘κ·Όμ„± ν–₯상을 μœ„ν•œ main μš”μ†Œ focus-visible μŠ€νƒ€μΌ μΆ”κ°€#184
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
jules-report-focus-visible-5331173489400574015

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

πŸ’‘ What: HTML 리포트의 <main> μš”μ†Œμ— ν‚€λ³΄λ“œ 탐색을 μœ„ν•œ :focus-visible 아웃라인 μŠ€νƒ€μΌμ„ μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
🎯 Why: κΈ°μ‘΄ μŠ€νƒ€μΌμ—μ„œλŠ” main:focus { outline: none; }만 μ μš©λ˜μ–΄ μžˆμ–΄ ν‚€λ³΄λ“œλ₯Ό 톡해 'Skip to main content' 링크둜 μ΄λ™ν•œ μ‚¬μš©μžκ°€ ν˜„μž¬ 포컀슀 μœ„μΉ˜λ₯Ό μ‹œκ°μ μœΌλ‘œ 확인할 수 μ—†λŠ” μ ‘κ·Όμ„± λ¬Έμ œκ°€ μžˆμ—ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€. 마우슀 클릭 μ‹œμ—λŠ” 아웃라인이 λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜μ§€ μ•Šλ„λ‘ μœ μ§€ν•˜λ©΄μ„œ ν‚€λ³΄λ“œ μ‚¬μš©μžμ—κ²Œ λͺ…ν™•ν•œ ν”Όλ“œλ°±μ„ μ œκ³΅ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•΄ μˆ˜μ •ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
πŸ“Έ Before/After: μˆ˜μ • ν›„ ν‚€λ³΄λ“œλ‘œ skip-linkλ₯Ό μ΄μš©ν•΄ 이동 μ‹œ <main> μ˜μ—­ ν…Œλ‘λ¦¬μ— 3px λ‘κ»˜μ˜ μ΄ˆλ‘μƒ‰(teal) 아웃라인이 λ Œλ”λ§λ©λ‹ˆλ‹€. 마우슀 클릭 μ‹œμ—λŠ” 이전과 같이 아웃라인이 μˆ¨κ²¨μ§‘λ‹ˆλ‹€.
β™Ώ Accessibility: 마우슀 μ‚¬μš©μž κ²½ν—˜μ„ ν•΄μΉ˜μ§€ μ•ŠμœΌλ©΄μ„œ ν‚€λ³΄λ“œ μ‚¬μš©μžμ˜ 포컀슀 κ°€μ‹œμ„±μ„ κ°œμ„ ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 5331173489400574015 started by @seonghobae

@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
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 d3663847b7564f90ab4912d7f94cdd29df85b8eb.

  • Head SHA: d3663847b7564f90ab4912d7f94cdd29df85b8eb

  • Workflow run: 29658890445

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

  • Result: FAIL
  • Test evidence: not proven passing
  • Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
  • Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

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

@opencode-agent

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: d3663847b7564f90ab4912d7f94cdd29df85b8eb
  • Workflow run: 29658890445
  • 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 d3663847b7564f90ab4912d7f94cdd29df85b8eb.

  • Head SHA: d3663847b7564f90ab4912d7f94cdd29df85b8eb

  • Workflow run: 29658890445

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

  • Result: FAIL
  • Test evidence: not proven passing
  • Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
  • Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

쀑볡 정리: report.py의 main:focus-visible κ·œμΉ™ μΆ”κ°€κ°€ #167 κ³Ό λ™μΌν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€(#167 은 νšŒκ·€ ν…ŒμŠ€νŠΈ 포함). #167 을 λŒ€ν‘œλ‘œ 남기고 λ‹«μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

λ°°κ²½: 2026-07-14 이후 쑰직 coverage-evidence 인프라 문제둜 λͺ¨λ“  PR이 REQUEST_CHANGES μƒνƒœμ˜€μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€(인프라 μˆ˜μ •: ContextualWisdomLab/.github#611). ν•„μš” μ‹œ μž¬μ˜€ν”ˆ κ°€λŠ₯ν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€.


Generated by Claude Code

@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

쀑볡 정리: report.py의 main:focus-visible κ·œμΉ™ μΆ”κ°€κ°€ #167 κ³Ό λ™μΌν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€(#167 은 νšŒκ·€ ν…ŒμŠ€νŠΈ 포함). #167 을 λŒ€ν‘œλ‘œ 남기고 λ‹«μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

λ°°κ²½: 2026-07-14 이후 쑰직 coverage-evidence 인프라 문제둜 λͺ¨λ“  PR이 REQUEST_CHANGES μƒνƒœμ˜€μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€(인프라 μˆ˜μ •: ContextualWisdomLab/.github#611). ν•„μš” μ‹œ μž¬μ˜€ν”ˆ κ°€λŠ₯ν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€.


Generated by Claude Code

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is a duplicate of #167 and stopping work on this task.

@seonghobae seonghobae closed this Jul 21, 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