🎨 Palette: 인라인 폼 유효성 검사 시각적 피드백 개선

[seonghobae]

💡 무엇을

• 폼 필드 유효성 검사 시 오류가 있는 필드(aria-invalid="true")에 붉은색 테두리와 포커스 링을 추가하여 시각적 피드백을 강화했습니다.

🎯 왜

• aria-invalid="true" 속성만 추가하고 시각적인 피드백을 제공하지 않으면, 스크린 리더를 사용하지 않는 시각적 사용자가 폼 저장 실패 시 오류가 발생한 위치를 직관적으로 파악하기 어렵기 때문입니다.

📸 전/후

• 적용 전: 필수 값을 입력하지 않고 '저장' 버튼을 클릭해도 에러 메시지만 표시될 뿐, 입력 폼 필드 자체에는 시각적 변화가 없었습니다.
• 적용 후: aria-invalid="true" 속성이 적용된 폼 필드에 붉은색(var(--danger)) 테두리와 포커스 링이 추가되어 사용자가 즉각적으로 오류를 인지할 수 있습니다.

♿ 접근성

• 기존에 aria-invalid 속성을 활용해 스크린 리더 사용자에게 오류 상태를 전달하던 것을 보완하여, 인지적 접근성 측면에서 시각적 사용자에게도 명확한 피드백을 제공하도록 개선했습니다. 기존의 시맨틱한 HTML/CSS 패턴을 유지하면서 색상과 포커스 스타일만을 추가했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 7802203221302986214 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.

[github-advanced-security]

You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool.

What Enabling Code Scanning Means:

• The 'Security' tab will display more code scanning analysis results (e.g., for the default branch).
• Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results.
• You will be able to see the analysis results for the pull request's branch on this overview once the scans have completed and the checks have passed.

For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 3f2760f8fe5d1bd1dc03d977a4df4f906137ec15
• Workflow run: 28709434151
• 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/palette.md, styles.css.
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 test coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports docstring coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/palette.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: Visual feedback improvement with proper accessibility integration
• Head SHA: 3f2760f8fe5d1bd1dc03d977a4df4f906137ec15
• Workflow run: 28709434151
• Workflow attempt: 1

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]

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/palette.md, styles.css.
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 test coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports docstring coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/palette.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: Visual feedback improvement with proper accessibility integration
• Head SHA: 3f2760f8fe5d1bd1dc03d977a4df4f906137ec15
• Workflow run: 28709434151
• Workflow attempt: 1

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

[seonghobae]

Closing during org-wide PR backlog reduction. This looks like a low-priority automated maintenance PR (palette ux/a11y), while the repository has a large backlog of security, conflict, and required-workflow work. Reopen or recreate a fresh PR if this change is still needed.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing during org-wide PR backlog reduction. This looks like a low-priority automated maintenance PR (palette ux/a11y), while the repository has a large backlog of security, conflict, and required-workflow work. Reopen or recreate a fresh PR if this change is still needed.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.