Skip to content

🎨 Palette: 디렉토리 이름이 λΉ„μ–΄μžˆμ„ λ•Œ μ ˆλŒ€ 경둜λ₯Ό 보여주도둝 μ ‘κ·Όμ„± ν–₯상 - #223

Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
palette-ux-empty-dirname-fallback-16929142384458769298
Closed

🎨 Palette: 디렉토리 이름이 λΉ„μ–΄μžˆμ„ λ•Œ μ ˆλŒ€ 경둜λ₯Ό 보여주도둝 μ ‘κ·Όμ„± ν–₯상#223
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
palette-ux-empty-dirname-fallback-16929142384458769298

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

πŸ’‘ What:
파일 μ‹œμŠ€ν…œμ˜ μ΅œμƒμœ„ 디렉토리(예: / λ˜λŠ” C:\)λ₯Ό μ²˜λ¦¬ν•  λ•Œ, 디렉토리 이름이 λΉ„μ–΄μžˆλŠ” 경우 μ ˆλŒ€ 경둜λ₯Ό λŒ€μ‹  μ‚¬μš©ν•˜λ„λ‘ main.ktλ₯Ό μˆ˜μ •ν–ˆμŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.

🎯 Why:
파일 μ‹œμŠ€ν…œ 루트 λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬μ˜ 경우 curr_dir.name(getName())이 빈 λ¬Έμžμ—΄μ„ λ°˜ν™˜ν•©λ‹ˆλ‹€. 이둜 인해 μƒμ„±λœ HTMLμ—μ„œ <title>κ³Ό <h1> μš”μ†Œκ°€ λΉ„μ–΄ 있게 λ˜μ–΄ 슀크린 리더 μ‚¬μš©μžμ˜ 접근성이 μ‹¬κ°ν•˜κ²Œ μ €ν•˜λ©λ‹ˆλ‹€.

πŸ“Έ Before/After:

  • Before: <title></title>, <h1></h1> (루트 λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬μ˜ 경우)
  • After: <title>/</title>, <h1>/</h1> (λ˜λŠ” ν•΄λ‹Ή 운영체제의 루트 경둜)

β™Ώ Accessibility:
λΉ„μ–΄μžˆλŠ” 타이틀과 헀딩을 λ°©μ§€ν•˜μ—¬ 슀크린 리더가 ν˜„μž¬ λ””λ ‰ν† λ¦¬μ˜ μ»¨ν…μŠ€νŠΈ(μ ˆλŒ€ 경둜)λ₯Ό λͺ…ν™•ν•˜κ²Œ 읽을 수 μžˆλ„λ‘ 접근성을 ν–₯μƒμ‹œμΌ°μŠ΅λ‹ˆλ‹€.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 16929142384458769298 started by @seonghobae

@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

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 5aa6389b73feedb06e2e70f52a17c8dd336caaa3.

  • Head SHA: 5aa6389b73feedb06e2e70f52a17c8dd336caaa3

  • Workflow run: 30424245633

  • 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 (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Loading

@opencode-agent

Copy link
Copy Markdown

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 5aa6389b73feedb06e2e70f52a17c8dd336caaa3
  • Workflow run: 30424245633
  • 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 5aa6389b73feedb06e2e70f52a17c8dd336caaa3.

  • Head SHA: 5aa6389b73feedb06e2e70f52a17c8dd336caaa3

  • Workflow run: 30424245633

  • 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 (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Closing as superseded by draft canonical #364. Both provide a non-empty absolute-path label when the filesystem root has no name. #364 now owns the bounded post-#363 implementation and must add one escaped shared label, root/non-root generated-file tests, APA 7 doctoring, changelog, exact-head quality/security checks, and independent approval. No evidence from this duplicate head is reused.

@seonghobae seonghobae closed this Aug 5, 2026
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Closing as superseded by draft canonical #364. Both provide a non-empty absolute-path label when the filesystem root has no name. #364 now owns the bounded post-#363 implementation and must add one escaped shared label, root/non-root generated-file tests, APA 7 doctoring, changelog, exact-head quality/security checks, and independent approval. No evidence from this duplicate head is reused.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is superseded by #364 and stopping work on this task.

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