🎨 Palette: HTML 리포트 숫자 가독성 개선 (Tabular Nums)

[seonghobae]

💡 What: Python 생성 HTML 리포트의 전체 body 스타일에 font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums;를 추가하여, 메트릭 카드나 표 안의 숫자들이 동일한 너비를 가지도록 수정했습니다.
🎯 Why: 데이터 위주의 정적 리포트에서 숫자가 세로로 잘 정렬되지 않으면 각 행이나 메트릭끼리 비교하고 읽기가 어렵습니다. 이를 통해 사용자들의 가독성과 스캔 용이성을 높였습니다.
📸 Before/After: N/A (CSS 개선)
♿ Accessibility: 숫자의 폭을 통일하여, 스크린 리더 없이 시각적으로 데이터를 탐색하는 사용자들의 인지적 부담을 덜고 시각적 안정감을 제공합니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 1245003220323317238 started by @seonghobae

Summary by CodeRabbit

• 새 기능

  • HTML 리포트의 숫자를 고정 폭으로 표시해 열 정렬과 데이터 스캔성을 개선했습니다.

• 문서

  • 데이터가 많은 리포트에서 숫자 가독성을 높이기 위한 표시 지침을 추가했습니다.

[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.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Note

Copilot couldn't run its full agentic review because it didn't start before the timeout. Make sure your repository has a runner available, or add a copilot-code-review.yml file specifying one with the runs-on attribute. See the docs for more details.

Adds tabular (monospaced-width) numerals to the generated HTML report CSS so numeric columns/cards align more cleanly for easier scanning in data-heavy reports.

Changes:

• Apply font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums; to the report body CSS.
• Document the rationale/action in the Palette learning log.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
python/fast_mlsirm/report.py	Updates generated HTML report CSS to use tabular numerals for improved numeric alignment.
.Jules/palette.md	Adds an entry documenting the tabular-numerals improvement and when to apply it.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 54913838-5338-473c-b2e2-1278353a51b4

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a3123a2 and 3c74619.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .Jules/palette.md
• python/fast_mlsirm/report.py

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

HTML 리포트 CSS에 tabular-nums를 추가하고, 데이터 중심 리포트에서의 적용 지침을 .Jules/palette.md에 기록했습니다.

Changes

표 형식 숫자 렌더링

Layer / File(s)	Summary
리포트 숫자 스타일 및 적용 지침 python/fast_mlsirm/report.py, .Jules/palette.md	리포트 CSS에 font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums;를 추가하고, 데이터 중심 리포트의 숫자 정렬 및 가독성 관련 지침을 문서화했습니다.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Suggested reviewers: copilot

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	제목이 HTML 리포트에 tabular nums를 적용해 숫자 가독성을 높인 핵심 변경을 정확히 요약합니다.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch ux-tabular-nums-1245003220323317238

---

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

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

[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 3c74619abb075369babb5c6df2459cd5dc66bfd3.

• Head SHA: 3c74619abb075369babb5c6df2459cd5dc66bfd3

• Workflow run: 30205497861

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

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 3c74619abb075369babb5c6df2459cd5dc66bfd3
• Workflow run: 30205497861
• 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 3c74619abb075369babb5c6df2459cd5dc66bfd3.

• Head SHA: 3c74619abb075369babb5c6df2459cd5dc66bfd3

• Workflow run: 30205497861

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

Loading

[seonghobae]

중복 정리: report.py body의 tabular-nums 적용으로, 리뷰 대기 중인 #187(테이블 접근성+정렬)/#199(스크립트 전반)에 포괄됩니다. 그룹당 대표 1건만 남기는 백로그 정리 방침에 따라 닫습니다. 필요 시 재오픈 가능합니다.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[google-labs-jules]

중복 정리: report.py body의 tabular-nums 적용으로, 리뷰 대기 중인 #187(테이블 접근성+정렬)/#199(스크립트 전반)에 포괄됩니다. 그룹당 대표 1건만 남기는 백로그 정리 방침에 따라 닫습니다. 필요 시 재오픈 가능합니다.

---

Generated by Claude Code

알겠습니다. 이 작업이 다른 PR에 포함되어 중복으로 처리됨을 확인했으며, 본 작업에 대한 추가 진행을 중단하겠습니다.