Skip to content

🎨 Palette: 숫자 μž…λ ₯ ν•„λ“œ 빈 κ°’ 인라인 μœ νš¨μ„± 검사 κ°œμ„  - #264

Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
palette-fix-empty-validation-16269754238760185714
Closed

🎨 Palette: 숫자 μž…λ ₯ ν•„λ“œ 빈 κ°’ 인라인 μœ νš¨μ„± 검사 κ°œμ„ #264
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
palette-fix-empty-validation-16269754238760185714

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

πŸ’‘ What: target_bytes와 batch_target_bytes μž…λ ₯ ν•„λ“œμ—μ„œ 값을 지웠을 λ•Œ μ»€μŠ€ν…€ μ—λŸ¬(Must be greater than 0.)κ°€ μ¦‰μ‹œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜μ§€ μ•Šλ„λ‘ this.value === ''일 λ•Œμ˜ 처리λ₯Ό μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
🎯 Why: μ‚¬μš©μžκ°€ μž…λ ₯ ν•„λ“œλ₯Ό μ§€μš°κ³  λ‹€μ‹œ μž…λ ₯ν•˜λ €κ³  ν•  λ•Œ 빈 λ¬Έμžμ—΄μ΄ NaN으둜 νŒŒμ‹±λ˜λ©΄μ„œ μ˜λ„μΉ˜ μ•Šκ²Œ μ—λŸ¬ λ©”μ‹œμ§€κ°€ ν‘œμ‹œλ˜λŠ” 문제λ₯Ό ν•΄κ²°ν•˜κΈ° μœ„ν•¨μž…λ‹ˆλ‹€. 빈 값일 경우 λΈŒλΌμš°μ €μ˜ κΈ°λ³Έ HTML5 required μœ νš¨μ„± 검사에 λ§‘κΈ°λŠ” 것이 μžμ—°μŠ€λŸ½μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
πŸ“Έ Before/After: 빈 λ¬Έμžμ—΄ μž…λ ₯ μ‹œ μ—λŸ¬ λ©”μ‹œμ§€(Must be greater than 0.)κ°€ μ¦‰μ‹œ ν‘œμ‹œλ˜λ˜ κ²ƒμ—μ„œ, λ©”μ‹œμ§€μ™€ aria-invalid 속성이 μ¦‰μ‹œ μ œκ±°λ˜λ„λ‘ λ³€κ²½.
β™Ώ Accessibility: aria-invalid 속성과 프리셋 λ²„νŠΌμ˜ aria-pressed μƒνƒœλ₯Ό λͺ…μ‹œμ μœΌλ‘œ μ œκ±°ν•¨μœΌλ‘œμ¨ 슀크린 리더 μ‚¬μš©μžμ—κ²Œ λΆˆν•„μš”ν•˜κ±°λ‚˜ 잘λͺ»λœ μ—λŸ¬ μƒνƒœκ°€ μ „λ‹¬λ˜μ§€ μ•Šκ²Œ κ°œμ„ ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 16269754238760185714 started by @seonghobae

target_bytes와 batch_target_bytes μž…λ ₯ ν•„λ“œμ—μ„œ 값을 지웠을 λ•Œ μ»€μŠ€ν…€ μ—λŸ¬κ°€ μ¦‰μ‹œ λ‚˜νƒ€λ‚˜μ§€ μ•Šλ„λ‘ `this.value === ''`일 λ•Œμ˜ 처리λ₯Ό μΆ”κ°€ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

πŸ‘‹ Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a πŸ‘€ 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 926d800da296a3226b4c11c400739d6b8d4d927f.

  • Head SHA: 926d800da296a3226b4c11c400739d6b8d4d927f

  • Workflow run: 30570687141

  • 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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 926d800da296a3226b4c11c400739d6b8d4d927f
  • Workflow run: 30570687141
  • 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 926d800da296a3226b4c11c400739d6b8d4d927f.

  • Head SHA: 926d800da296a3226b4c11c400739d6b8d4d927f

  • Workflow run: 30570687141

  • 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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Closed as a duplicate of #274. The same two production handlers and learning record are covered by the canonical PR, which now owns the single exact-head CI, security, review, and auto-merge path.

@seonghobae seonghobae closed this Aug 6, 2026
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Closed as a duplicate of #274. The same two production handlers and learning record are covered by the canonical PR, which now owns the single exact-head CI, security, review, and auto-merge path.

μ•Œκ² μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€. 이 PR이 μ€‘λ³΅μœΌλ‘œ κ°„μ£Όλ˜μ–΄ μ’…λ£Œλ˜μ—ˆμŒμ„ μΈμ§€ν•˜μ˜€μœΌλ©°, 이 μž‘μ—…μ— λŒ€ν•œ 진행을 μ€‘λ‹¨ν•˜κ² μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

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