Skip to content

🎨 Palette: 모달 창 공통 버튼에 ARIA label 추가#575

Open
seonghobae wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
palette-add-aria-labels-to-modal-buttons-11040307949395032286
Open

🎨 Palette: 모달 창 공통 버튼에 ARIA label 추가#575
seonghobae wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
palette-add-aria-labels-to-modal-buttons-11040307949395032286

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

💡 What: Added explicit aria-label attributes to generic action buttons (e.g., "취소", "저장", "삭제") across multiple ERD canvas modals (AddTableModal, EditTableModal, and EditEdgeModal).
🎯 Why: When screen reader users navigate through focusable elements (like forms or lists), generic button text provides no context about which modal's action they are triggering. This creates a confusing and ambiguous experience.
📸 Before/After: Visuals remain unchanged.
♿ Accessibility: Provides explicit context (e.g., aria-label="테이블 편집 저장") to ensure screen readers announce both the action and its target accurately, improving WCAG compliance.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 11040307949395032286 started by @seonghobae

…plicit aria-labels to '취소', '저장', and '삭제' buttons in AddTableModal, EditTableModal, and EditEdgeModal to provide context for screen reader users. Updated relevant unit tests.
@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 83b2e18c1ce5809cd3979d877fbebf6b0628623b.

  • Head SHA: 83b2e18c1ce5809cd3979d877fbebf6b0628623b

  • Workflow run: 29465581159

  • 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: palette.md"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: palette.md"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Frontend (5 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Frontend (5 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["frontend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 83b2e18c1ce5809cd3979d877fbebf6b0628623b
  • Workflow run: 29465581159
  • 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 83b2e18c1ce5809cd3979d877fbebf6b0628623b.

  • Head SHA: 83b2e18c1ce5809cd3979d877fbebf6b0628623b

  • Workflow run: 29465581159

  • 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: palette.md"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: palette.md"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Frontend (5 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Frontend (5 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["frontend tests"]
Loading

…plicit aria-labels to '취소', '저장', and '삭제' buttons in AddTableModal, EditTableModal, and EditEdgeModal to provide context for screen reader users. Updated relevant unit tests.
…plicit aria-labels to '취소', '저장', and '삭제' buttons in AddTableModal, EditTableModal, and EditEdgeModal to provide context for screen reader users. Updated relevant unit tests.\n\nFixes an issue with coverage-evidence by explicitly declaring packageManager: pnpm@10.30.3 in the frontend package.json, which was causing the CI script to fail with 'Coverage package runner pnpm requires an exact packageManager version'.
…plicit aria-labels to '취소', '저장', and '삭제' buttons in AddTableModal, EditTableModal, and EditEdgeModal to provide context for screen reader users. Updated relevant unit tests.\n\nFixes an issue with coverage-evidence by explicitly declaring packageManager: pnpm@10.30.3 in the frontend package.json, which was causing the CI script to fail with 'Coverage package runner pnpm requires an exact packageManager version'.
…plicit aria-labels to '취소', '저장', and '삭제' buttons in AddTableModal, EditTableModal, and EditEdgeModal to provide context for screen reader users. Updated relevant unit tests.\n\nFixes an issue with coverage-evidence by explicitly declaring packageManager: pnpm@10.30.3 in the frontend package.json, which was causing the CI script to fail with 'Coverage package runner pnpm requires an exact packageManager version'.\n\nFixes an issue found by STRIX where EditTableModal failed to snapshot initial state, allowing unsubmitted changes to persist upon cancellation.
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