fix(report): rebuild pointer-focus styling on current main - #822
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe essay report CSS now suppresses the default ChangesEssay report focus styling
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes Mergeability Score: ⚪ Minimal · up to This PR makes a narrowly scoped pointer-focus styling change with focused test updates; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains beyond normal checks and review. Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
Pull request was converted to draft
|
Fresh exact-head note for |
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore 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 headab8d08dc800226df83c6dfcf773ee2b0ebe7f1c6. -
Head SHA:
ab8d08dc800226df83c6dfcf773ee2b0ebe7f1c6 -
Workflow run: 31771003840
-
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: report_html.py"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: report_html.py"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs: 822-pointer-focus-report.md"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs: 822-pointer-focus-report.md"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file: report_html.py"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: report_html.py"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
|
Fresh same-head RCA for the current formal
The same-head formal review remains effective and is not being dismissed or treated as approval. It requires successful replacement/current-head central evidence at the owning layer before merge, in addition to the live independent non-author approval rule. |
|
@opencode-agent review the current exact PR head after the release-note commit. Preserve all protected-main gates; do not merge or update the branch. |
|
@coderabbitai review |
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
|
Pull request was converted to draft
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore 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 head7fa81fbe96819ca628764058c3dbf4f2a953fac8. -
Head SHA:
7fa81fbe96819ca628764058c3dbf4f2a953fac8 -
Workflow run: 31816815287
-
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["Docs: 822-pointer-focus-report.md"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs: 822-pointer-focus-report.md"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file: report_html.py"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: report_html.py"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
Closing without merge. The exact branch implements the pointer-only visual change with bare |
|
@opencode-agent Please re-review exact unchanged head |
|
Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed. Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs. |
Admin green-wave product SUCCESS
1 participant
Scope
Clean reconstruction of the unique essay-report pointer-focus intent preserved from closed unsafe PR #811, now corrected so pointer-outline suppression does not remove the native keyboard fallback in user agents without usable
:focus-visiblesupport.Test-first lineage
main:focus { outline: none; }behavior from 🎨 Palette: [UX 개선] 메인 콘텐츠 컨테이너의 마우스 클릭 윤곽선 제거 #811.b14e781cddc5da894e97d460b52b02e011dc1248requiresmain:focus:not(:focus-visible) { outline: none; }, prohibits baremain:focus { outline: none; }, and retains the explicitmain:focus-visibleindicator.32a9dad1b1c14a14db3ed3fffacbdc2366d06761replaces only the unsafe selector inpython/fast_mlsirm/scoring/essay/report_html.py.Boundaries
tabindex=-1main container.main:focus-visibleremains an explicit three-pixel Highlight indicator.:focus:not(:focus-visible)selector, the suppression rule is ignored rather than unconditionally removing the native fallback outline.Exact current state
main:1f63c2b3003b3a8e72976a8859ff0867642ae294.32a9dad1b1c14a14db3ed3fffacbdc2366d06761.CHANGES_REQUESTEDdecision must be remapped to its reviewed predecessor and is not dismissed automatically.Integration requires live-base reconciliation, exact-current-head required evidence, zero valid unresolved findings, and qualifying protected review. No gate is weakened or bypassed.
Tracks #821.