fix(a11y): give overview disclosures unique linked IDs - #392
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 26 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
Comment |
|
@coderabbitai review @opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review exact-head review requested for |
|
|
|
@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review @coderabbitai Please review exact current head |
|
|
![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 head19c67e730191341ebdc43edbb26744eaf68a13bc. -
Head SHA:
19c67e730191341ebdc43edbb26744eaf68a13bc -
Workflow run: 30993118993
-
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"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: overview-stats-disclosure-identity.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: overview-stats-disclosure-identity.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
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["Changed file (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: overview-stats-disclosure-identity.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: overview-stats-disclosure-identity.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
|
1 participant
Buyer-visible accessibility gap
OverviewStatsused repository-global static IDs for its explanation toggle and content. Rendering the component more than once created duplicate IDs and ambiguousaria-controlsrelationships, allowing a button to reference another card's content.Change
useId();<prefix>-toggleand<prefix>-contentidentifiers;aria-expanded, focus styling, and hidden state;regionthrough reciprocalaria-labelledby;Replacement rationale
This is a clean four-file maintainer replacement on exact current
developmental(4f8796ec8c3a8d130136029650705714724cb0ac). It supersedes #275, whose simple accessibility intent had accumulated 30 changed files and more than 1,200 unrelated deletions. No check or review evidence from that stale lineage is reused here.Exact-head gate
Current exact head:
828fb6cadde1ee34cf2fa40850fff8aa59bb0141.Merge only after exact-head web lint/type checking/tests/coverage/build, repository CI, Security Scan, SAST Semgrep, dependency/supply-chain gates, current-head automated review, qualifying independent approval, zero unresolved actionable threads, and every repository protection rule succeed without bypass.