π¨ Palette: [μ κ·Όμ± κ°μ ] HTML 리ν¬νΈ ν μ΄λΈμ row header μ§μ - #995
π¨ Palette: [μ κ·Όμ± κ°μ ] HTML 리ν¬νΈ ν
μ΄λΈμ row header μ§μ #995seonghobae wants to merge 13 commits into
Conversation
- λ°μ΄ν° ν μ΄λΈμ 첫 λ²μ§Έ μ΄μ `<th scope="row">`κ° μ μ©λλλ‘ `row_header_column=0` μΈμλ₯Ό λͺ μν¨ - μκ°μ ν μ΄λΈ ꡬ쑰μ μ€ν¬λ¦° 리λ μμ± μΆλ ₯ κ°μ μλ―Έμ μ°κ²°μ± κ°μ
|
π Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a π 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 New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
|
Important Review skippedAuto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the βοΈ 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. π βΉοΈ Recent review infoβοΈ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: π Files selected for processing (2)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. π WalkthroughWalkthroughCalibration and validation HTML report tables now pass ChangesHTML report table rendering
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Merge Risk: βͺ Minimal Β· up to The change adds semantic row headers to improve screen-reader navigation without altering visual layout or report behavior; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains after normal checks and review. π₯ Pre-merge checks | β 5β Passed checks (5 passed)
β¨ Finishing Touchesπ Generate docstrings
π§ͺ 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 |
- λ°μ΄ν° ν μ΄λΈμ 첫 λ²μ§Έ μ΄μ `<th scope="row">`κ° μ μ©λλλ‘ `row_header_column=0` μΈμλ₯Ό λͺ μν¨ - μκ°μ ν μ΄λΈ ꡬ쑰μ μ€ν¬λ¦° 리λ μμ± μΆλ ₯ κ°μ μλ―Έμ μ°κ²°μ± κ°μ
![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 head86f1bd7a1269fef1a2edb59d158134f1111b9584. -
Head SHA:
86f1bd7a1269fef1a2edb59d158134f1111b9584 -
Workflow run: 32194301299
-
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 (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_scoring_essay_report_row_headers.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_scoring_essay_report_row_headers.py"]
R3 --> V3["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 (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_scoring_essay_report_row_headers.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_scoring_essay_report_row_headers.py"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
|
@opencode-agent Please re-review the unchanged exact head |
- λ°μ΄ν° ν μ΄λΈμ 첫 λ²μ§Έ μ΄μ `<th scope="row">`κ° μ μ©λλλ‘ `row_header_column=0` μΈμλ₯Ό λͺ μν¨ - μκ°μ ν μ΄λΈ ꡬ쑰μ μ€ν¬λ¦° 리λ μμ± μΆλ ₯ κ°μ μλ―Έμ μ°κ²°μ± κ°μ
|
@opencode-agent Please re-review current exact head |
- λ°μ΄ν° ν μ΄λΈμ 첫 λ²μ§Έ μ΄μ `<th scope="row">`κ° μ μ©λλλ‘ `row_header_column=0` μΈμλ₯Ό λͺ μν¨ - μκ°μ ν μ΄λΈ ꡬ쑰μ μ€ν¬λ¦° 리λ μμ± μΆλ ₯ κ°μ μλ―Έμ μ°κ²°μ± κ°μ
|
Superseded by #997. This branch repeatedly retained the two production |
Pull request was closed
Understood. Acknowledging that this work is superseded by #997 and stopping work on this task. |
1 participant
π‘ What:
calibration_report_html.pyλ°validation_report_html.pyμ λ°μ΄ν° ν μ΄λΈ λ λλ§ μrow_header_column=0μ λͺ μνμ¬ μ²« λ²μ§Έ μλ³μ μ΄μ΄<th scope="row">λ‘ λ λλ§λλλ‘ μμ νμ΅λλ€.π― Why:
πΈ Before/After:
βΏ Accessibility:
<td>κ° μλ<th>λ‘ μ 곡ν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ μ κ·Όμ± λ³΄μ‘° κΈ°κΈ°μ μ 보 ꡬ쑰 νμ λ₯λ ₯μ΄ ν₯μλμμ΅λλ€.PR created automatically by Jules for task 18030566109311953973 started by @seonghobae
Summary by CodeRabbit