🎨 Palette: 기술 용어 약어에 대한 접근성 레이블 추가

[seonghobae]

기술 용어 약어(PK, FK, NN 등)에 대한 스크린 리더 접근성을 개선하기 위한 PR입니다.

• TableNode.tsx: 시각적인 툴팁(title)과 함께 스크린 리더 사용자도 정확한 의미를 파악할 수 있도록 aria-label 추가.
• EditTableModal.tsx: 체크박스와 연결된 약어 텍스트에 <abbr> 태그와 aria-label을 명시적으로 추가하여 접근성 확보.
• 이와 관련된 UX/접근성 학습 내용을 .Jules/palette.md 파일에 기록.
• 커버리지를 보완하고 추가된 로직을 테스트하기 위한 TableNode.test.tsx 작성 완료.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 4290034360206589878 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 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]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.Jules/palette.md, .gitignore, frontend/src/components/modals/EditTableModal.tsx, frontend/src/erd/TableNode.test.tsx, frontend/src/erd/TableNode.tsx, frontend/src/setupTests.ts, frontend/tsconfig.json, frontend/vitest.config.ts); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 2ffa5dcf19e2e607f0f50b233f3b660099b6ffbd
• Workflow run: 28480233498
• Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

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"]
  Evidence --> S2["Frontend (6 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Frontend (6 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["frontend tests"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 0b240df509335a71b6852aabcbdad71136fd72a1
• Workflow run: 28684817198
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .Jules/bolt.md, .Jules/palette.md, .github/workflows/codeql-backfill.yml, .github/workflows/pr-review-autofix.yml, .jules/bolt.md, and 53 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .Jules/bolt.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: PR improves accessibility for screen readers with aria-labels and abbr tags, and all tests pass.
• Head SHA: 0b240df509335a71b6852aabcbdad71136fd72a1
• Workflow run: 28684817198
• Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (11 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (11 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Workflow (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Workflow (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Backend (15 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["API and service runtime"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Backend (15 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["backend tests"]
  Evidence --> S4["Docs: codeql-sast-backfill.md"]
  S4 --> I4["operator or user guidance"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Docs: codeql-sast-backfill.md"]
  R4 --> V4["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S5["Frontend (30 files)"]
  S5 --> I5["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I5 --> R5["Review risk: Frontend (30 files)"]
  R5 --> V5["frontend tests"]
  Evidence --> S6["CI script: validate_codeql_backfill.py"]
  S6 --> I6["review and security gate shell path"]
  I6 --> R6["Review risk: CI script: validate_codeql_backfill.py"]
  R6 --> V6["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .Jules/bolt.md, .Jules/palette.md, .github/workflows/codeql-backfill.yml, .github/workflows/pr-review-autofix.yml, .jules/bolt.md, and 53 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .Jules/bolt.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: PR improves accessibility for technical abbreviations with aria-labels and abbr tags, all tests pass with 100% coverage
• Head SHA: 536b2457359d51d619037333e8928167eb57fbe9
• Workflow run: 28676651302
• Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (11 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (11 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Workflow (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Workflow (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Backend (15 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["API and service runtime"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Backend (15 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["backend tests"]
  Evidence --> S4["Docs: codeql-sast-backfill.md"]
  S4 --> I4["operator or user guidance"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Docs: codeql-sast-backfill.md"]
  R4 --> V4["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S5["Frontend (30 files)"]
  S5 --> I5["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I5 --> R5["Review risk: Frontend (30 files)"]
  R5 --> V5["frontend tests"]
  Evidence --> S6["CI script: validate_codeql_backfill.py"]
  S6 --> I6["review and security gate shell path"]
  I6 --> R6["Review risk: CI script: validate_codeql_backfill.py"]
  R6 --> V6["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .Jules/bolt.md, .Jules/palette.md, .github/workflows/codeql-backfill.yml, .github/workflows/pr-review-autofix.yml, .jules/bolt.md, and 53 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .Jules/bolt.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: PR improves accessibility for screen readers with aria-labels and abbr tags, and all tests pass.
• Head SHA: 0b240df509335a71b6852aabcbdad71136fd72a1
• Workflow run: 28684817198
• Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (11 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (11 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Workflow (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Workflow (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Backend (15 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["API and service runtime"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Backend (15 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["backend tests"]
  Evidence --> S4["Docs: codeql-sast-backfill.md"]
  S4 --> I4["operator or user guidance"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Docs: codeql-sast-backfill.md"]
  R4 --> V4["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S5["Frontend (30 files)"]
  S5 --> I5["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I5 --> R5["Review risk: Frontend (30 files)"]
  R5 --> V5["frontend tests"]
  Evidence --> S6["CI script: validate_codeql_backfill.py"]
  S6 --> I6["review and security gate shell path"]
  I6 --> R6["Review risk: CI script: validate_codeql_backfill.py"]
  R6 --> V6["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]

Loading