🎨 Palette: [마우스 클릭 시 발생하는 summary 기본 포커스 링 제거]

[seonghobae]

💡 What: HTML 리포트의 summary 태그 클릭 시 나타나는 기본 브라우저 포커스 링 제거 (outline: none을 :focus에 적용)
🎯 Why: 마우스 사용자가 항목을 펼치거나 닫을 때 브라우저의 기본 포커스 아웃라인이 나타나는 것이 시각적으로 거슬리고 어색함을 해결하기 위함
📸 Before/After:

• Before: 마우스로 Exact values: ... 클릭 시 브라우저 기본 포커스 링(테두리)이 나타남
• After: 마우스 클릭 시 포커스 링이 보이지 않으며, 키보드 탭 네비게이션 시에는 설정된 --teal 색상의 :focus-visible 아웃라인이 정상적으로 표시됨
  ♿ Accessibility: 키보드 접근성(focus-visible)을 훼손하지 않으면서 마우스 사용자의 사용성을 높임 (.Jules/palette.md에 학습 내용 추가)

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 9953193772289899297 started by @seonghobae

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Accessibility

  • Updated disclosure controls so focus outlines appear for keyboard navigation without unnecessary outlines during mouse interaction.
  • Preserved clear custom focus indicators for keyboard users.

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved presentation of validation errors related to metric, row, and cell limits.

[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.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: c137f42d-eb46-4c4a-aa30-1e75af3a29d1

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 04d0bc2 and 8226270.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

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

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

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The PR updates disclosure-summary focus styling and documents the pattern. It also reformats metric, row, and cell limit errors without changing validation behavior.

Changes

Accessibility and formatting updates

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Summary focus styling and guidance .Jules/palette.md, python/fast_mlsirm/report.py	The CSS suppresses default :focus outlines and preserves custom :focus-visible outlines for disclosure summaries. The palette documents this pattern.
Validation error formatting python/fast_mlsirm/report.py	Metric, row, and cell limit ValueError statements are reformatted onto single lines. Validation behavior remains unchanged.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 82262

This localized change removes the mouse-click focus ring from report summaries while retaining the keyboard-visible focus outline; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains beyond normal checks and review.

Possibly related PRs

• ContextualWisdomLab/fast-mlsirm#822: Both PRs adjust focus-outline CSS while preserving :focus-visible styling.
• ContextualWisdomLab/fast-mlsirm#928: Both PRs modify python/fast_mlsirm/report.py and .Jules/palette.md for summary focus styling.

🚥 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	The title clearly describes the main change: removing the default focus ring from summary elements after mouse clicks.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.
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 palette-summary-focus-visible-9953193772289899297

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[seonghobae]

Current head 8226270ba68c9d2bbb3d9708c68cc00049e727a7 is not merge-ready. The new rule uses .exact-values > summary:focus / .export-block > summary:focus { outline: none; } and relies on a later :focus-visible rule to restore keyboard focus. That removes the browser fallback focus indicator in user agents that do not apply :focus-visible, whereas the repository's hardened pointer-focus pattern uses :focus:not(:focus-visible) so unsupported selectors fail closed and leave native focus visible. The patch also contains unrelated formatting-only changes in report limit errors and adds no regression test for the pointer-vs-keyboard focus contract. Keep this lane isolated from #978's report.py accessibility work; rebuild it test-first with :focus:not(:focus-visible) (or equivalent fail-safe behavior) and no incidental formatting churn before Ready.

[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 8226270ba68c9d2bbb3d9708c68cc00049e727a7.

• Head SHA: 8226270ba68c9d2bbb3d9708c68cc00049e727a7

• Workflow run: 32124710947

• 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 Review Overview

• Head SHA: 8226270ba68c9d2bbb3d9708c68cc00049e727a7
• Workflow run: 32124710947
• 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 8226270ba68c9d2bbb3d9708c68cc00049e727a7.

• Head SHA: 8226270ba68c9d2bbb3d9708c68cc00049e727a7

• Workflow run: 32124710947

• 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

[seonghobae]

Closing this lane rather than integrating it. On exact head 8226270ba68c9d2bbb3d9708c68cc00049e727a7, the CSS applies outline: none to unconditional summary:focus and relies on the later :focus-visible rule to restore a keyboard indicator. That removes the browser's fallback focus indicator in environments where :focus-visible does not match/is not supported, contradicting the repository's existing fail-safe focus pattern. The same patch also contains unrelated report error-formatting churn and no regression proving fallback focus visibility. A future replacement should be test-first and use summary:focus:not(:focus-visible) (or an equivalent progressive-enhancement pattern) while preserving a visible keyboard fallback; it should not carry unrelated formatting changes.

[google-labs-jules]

Current head 8226270ba68c9d2bbb3d9708c68cc00049e727a7 is not merge-ready. The new rule uses .exact-values > summary:focus / .export-block > summary:focus { outline: none; } and relies on a later :focus-visible rule to restore keyboard focus. That removes the browser fallback focus indicator in user agents that do not apply :focus-visible, whereas the repository's hardened pointer-focus pattern uses :focus:not(:focus-visible) so unsupported selectors fail closed and leave native focus visible. The patch also contains unrelated formatting-only changes in report limit errors and adds no regression test for the pointer-vs-keyboard focus contract. Keep this lane isolated from #978's report.py accessibility work; rebuild it test-first with :focus:not(:focus-visible) (or equivalent fail-safe behavior) and no incidental formatting churn before Ready.

코드 리뷰 감사합니다. 이전 커밋에서 발생한 의도치 않은 포매팅 변경사항을 제거하고, 지적해주신 대로 :focus:not(:focus-visible)를 사용하여 :focus-visible을 지원하지 않는 환경에서도 기본 포커스 링이 유지되도록 수정했습니다. 또한 이에 대한 pointer-vs-keyboard focus contract 회귀 테스트(test_summary_disclosures_use_fail_closed_focus_pattern)를 test_report_focus_contrast.py에 추가하여 검증을 완료했습니다.