search

adobe / aem-core-forms-components

Apache License 2.0
26 stars 50 forks source link

Accessibility changes in file-input #1246

Closed pavi41 closed 2 months ago

pavi41 commented 3 months ago

Description

Related Issue

Motivation and Context

How Has This Been Tested?

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Types of changes

Checklist:

codecov[bot] commented 3 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 81.41%. Comparing base (4a55a33) to head (276e015).

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## dev #1246 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage 81.41% 81.41% Complexity 818 818 ========================================= Files 94 94 Lines 2201 2201 Branches 301 301 ========================================= Hits 1792 1792 Misses 252 252 Partials 157 157 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Lighthouse scores (mobile)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 93 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Lighthouse scores (desktop)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 100 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Lighthouse scores (desktop)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 100 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Lighthouse scores (mobile)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 86 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Lighthouse scores (mobile)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 94 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Lighthouse scores (desktop)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 100 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 3 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Lighthouse scores (desktop)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 100 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Lighthouse scores (mobile)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 93 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Lighthouse scores (desktop)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 100 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Lighthouse scores (mobile)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 84 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Lighthouse scores (desktop)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 100 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Lighthouse scores (mobile)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 94 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
landmark-one-main moderate
region moderate
target-size serious
pavi41 commented 2 months ago

Why is there a change in fileinput runtime spec ? This PR should only include v2 and v3 runtime spec

Any code removal in file input runtime spec would mean there is a backward compatibility impact

As of now, we are running these tests against V3 file-input so we have to check for span or button in test case to prevent it from fail(As we have replaced span with button in V3). Ideally we should have 3 collaterals for v1, V2, V3. While I will be picking this incrementally, can we get this pr merged for now as it is backward compatible

rismehta commented 2 months ago

Why is there a change in fileinput runtime spec ? This PR should only include v2 and v3 runtime spec Any code removal in file input runtime spec would mean there is a backward compatibility impact

As of now, we are running these tests against V3 file-input so we have to check for span or button in test case to prevent it from fail(As we have replaced span with button in V3). Ideally we should have 3 collaterals for v1, V2, V3. While I will be picking this incrementally, can we get this pr merged for now as it is backward compatible

The current test suite shouldn't undergo any alterations; otherwise, it might disrupt the existing use-case. The current PR should solely incorporate the test suite changes specific to v2 and v3, as the v2 test specification is currently missing.

adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Lighthouse scores (desktop)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 100 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Lighthouse scores (mobile)

Performance Accessibility Best-Practices SEO
Scores 93 96 100 75
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
target-size serious
adobe-bot commented 2 months ago

Accessibility Violations Found

Id Impact
label-title-only serious
target-size serious
pavi41 commented 2 months ago

fileinput.runtime.spec.js should not have any change apart from the page URL. Please fix this @rismehta only the page url has been changed in fileinput.runtime.spec.js, only .cmp-adaptiveform-fileinput__filedelete' has been removed because it was not implemented in v1.