🎨 빈 상태(Empty State) 디자인 일관성 향상 및 폴더 아이콘 추가

[seonghobae]

이 PR은 빈 상태(Empty state) 화면의 시각적 일관성과 사용자 경험을 향상시키기 위한 마이크로 UX 개선입니다.

💡 무엇을 변경했나요

빈 디렉토리일 때 출력되는 메시지의 디자인을 기존 링크 리스트와 일관되게 맞추었습니다.

• CSS .empty-dir에 display: flex를 추가하여 기존 a.dir-link와 동일한 간격과 정렬을 가지도록 설정했습니다.
• 빈 상태 메시지에 열린 폴더 아이콘(📂)을 추가하여 빈 폴더임을 직관적으로 알 수 있게 했습니다.

🎯 왜 변경했나요

이전에는 빈 상태 텍스트가 왼쪽 정렬된 단순 텍스트로 표시되어, 다른 파일/폴더 목록 요소들과 시각적으로 정렬이 어긋나 이질감을 주었습니다. 동일한 Flex 레이아웃과 아이콘 구조를 도입하여 통일감 있고 깔끔한 UI를 제공합니다.

📸 전/후 사진

스크린샷 및 녹화 영상을 참조하세요. (아이콘과 텍스트가 정상적으로 정렬된 모습을 확인할 수 있습니다.)

♿ 접근성

추가된 열린 폴더 아이콘은 장식용이므로 스크린 리더가 불필요하게 읽지 않도록 <span aria-hidden="true"> 속성으로 감싸서 접근성 표준을 준수했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 16185169536262992343 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 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 cd9dc70d77ed49ebf1c9266264cde5e8bdac9fe1.

• Head SHA: cd9dc70d77ed49ebf1c9266264cde5e8bdac9fe1

• Workflow run: 30424257654

• 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]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: cd9dc70d77ed49ebf1c9266264cde5e8bdac9fe1
• Workflow run: 30424257654
• 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 cd9dc70d77ed49ebf1c9266264cde5e8bdac9fe1.

• Head SHA: cd9dc70d77ed49ebf1c9266264cde5e8bdac9fe1

• Workflow run: 30424257654

• 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

[seonghobae]

Closing as superseded by the protected branch and draft #360. Empty-state flex alignment, decorative icon semantics, and status messaging are already present; #360 owns the remaining evidence-based contrast/focus/readability contract after #363. No evidence from this duplicate head is reused.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing as superseded by the protected branch and draft #360. Empty-state flex alignment, decorative icon semantics, and status messaging are already present; #360 owns the remaining evidence-based contrast/focus/readability contract after #363. No evidence from this duplicate head is reused.

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