Skip to content

🎨 Palette: [UX improvement] Link export artifact descriptions to buttons#571

Open
seonghobae wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
palette-export-modal-a11y-5821531562571109599
Open

🎨 Palette: [UX improvement] Link export artifact descriptions to buttons#571
seonghobae wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
palette-export-modal-a11y-5821531562571109599

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

💡 What: Added id to export artifact descriptions and linked them to the corresponding export buttons using aria-describedby in ExportModal.tsx. Update associated test in ExportModal.test.tsx to assert this enhancement.
🎯 Why: Disabled buttons lack context for screen reader users on why they are disabled. Linking the disabled buttons explicitly to the text element explaining the cause (e.g. "먼저 테이블을 추가하세요") improves the accessibility and overall user experience significantly without visual changes.
📸 Before/After: Visuals are unchanged. The underlying ARIA tree now correctly associates the disabled reason with the button element.
♿ Accessibility: Screen readers will now read the text describing the reason the button is disabled, rather than simply announcing "disabled button".


PR created automatically by Jules for task 5821531562571109599 started by @seonghobae

@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 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.

@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 0f93d25ee4e6186cadaabbb98bc00f8633081022.

  • Head SHA: 0f93d25ee4e6186cadaabbb98bc00f8633081022

  • Workflow run: 29422416434

  • 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["Frontend (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Frontend (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["frontend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Jul 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: fc8633b6bf4927fade9238abcbe90d3269eacdd0
  • Workflow run: 29426375475
  • 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 fc8633b6bf4927fade9238abcbe90d3269eacdd0.

  • Head SHA: fc8633b6bf4927fade9238abcbe90d3269eacdd0

  • Workflow run: 29426375475

  • 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["Frontend (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Frontend (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["frontend tests"]
Loading

@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 fc8633b6bf4927fade9238abcbe90d3269eacdd0.

  • Head SHA: fc8633b6bf4927fade9238abcbe90d3269eacdd0

  • Workflow run: 29426375475

  • 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["Frontend (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Frontend (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["frontend tests"]
Loading

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