ci: enforce the website patch gate and trim comment rationale

Review feedback from DrJKL:

- Make the 80% website patch status effective. informational: true always
  passes regardless of target, so the gate was advertised but inert. The
  project status stays informational; patch is the one that answers "is
  the code you just wrote tested?".

- Condense the CI/coverage comments to the constraint itself rather than
  narrating the implementation.

- Drop the README note about unit tests no longer being in that list. A
  README documents what is, not what changed.

- behaviour -> behavior.

Author: Glary-Bot

.coderabbit.yaml

@@ -67,15 +67,15 @@ reviews:
           Changes confined to `packages/` are deliberately out of scope here, even though the website consumes those packages: the generic "End-to-end regression coverage for fixes" check already requires a `browser_tests/` regression test for them. Do not demand a second website-specific test for a shared-package change.
 
           Fail if all of the following are true:
-          1. The diff itself changes observable website runtime behaviour — fixes a user-visible bug, adds a page or route, or changes an interactive flow, form, or navigation. A `fix`/`bugfix`/`hotfix` style title or commit subject is only a hint: confirm it against the diff, and never treat the wording alone as qualifying.
-          2. The PR does not add or update a Playwright assertion under `apps/website/e2e/**/*.spec.ts` that actually exercises the route, flow, or behaviour this PR changed. An unrelated assertion elsewhere in the suite does not satisfy this.
+          1. The diff itself changes observable website runtime behavior — fixes a user-visible bug, adds a page or route, or changes an interactive flow, form, or navigation. A `fix`/`bugfix`/`hotfix` style title or commit subject is only a hint: confirm it against the diff, and never treat the wording alone as qualifying.
+          2. The PR does not add or update a Playwright assertion under `apps/website/e2e/**/*.spec.ts` that actually exercises the route, flow, or behavior this PR changed. An unrelated assertion elsewhere in the suite does not satisfy this.
           3. The PR description lacks a concrete explanation of why an end-to-end regression test was not added.
 
-          Do not fail for text/copy-only edits, translation-only changes, static asset swaps, styling-only changes, generated files, dependency metadata, refactors that preserve behaviour, or changes confined to tests, tooling, or CI.
+          Do not fail for text/copy-only edits, translation-only changes, static asset swaps, styling-only changes, generated files, dependency metadata, refactors that preserve behavior, or changes confined to tests, tooling, or CI.
           A reformatted or whitespace-only edit to an existing spec does not count as adding coverage.
 
           Pass otherwise.
-          When failing, name the behaviour-changing signal you found and ask the author to either add or update a Playwright regression test under `apps/website/e2e/` or record in the PR description why an end-to-end test is not practical.
+          When failing, name the behavior-changing signal you found and ask the author to either add or update a Playwright regression test under `apps/website/e2e/` or record in the PR description why an end-to-end test is not practical.
 
       - name: ADR compliance for entity/litegraph changes
         mode: warning
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ reviews:
     - path: 'apps/website/src/**/*.{ts,vue}'
       instructions: |
         Changed lines here are measured by the `website-unit` Codecov patch
-        status, so new behaviour needs a colocated Vitest test. Treat
+        status, so new behavior needs a colocated Vitest test. Treat
         `docs/guidance/vitest.md` as required review context. Flag new
         exported logic that no test exercises.
         This glob is wider than the gate: `coverage.exclude` in

.github/workflows/ci-website-unit.yaml

@@ -48,19 +48,13 @@ jobs:
           files: ./coverage/lcov.info
           disable_search: true
           flags: website-unit
-          # LCOV records paths relative to apps/website (`src/...`), which on
-          # their own would collide with the root app's `src/`. Uploading from
-          # that directory keeps report and network paths aligned, and the
-          # prefix re-roots both onto `apps/website/src/...`.
+          # Re-root LCOV paths to prevent collisions with root-app coverage.
           network_prefix: apps/website/
           token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }}
-          # Forks receive no CODECOV_TOKEN; a failed upload must not block an
-          # external contributor. Everywhere else a silent upload failure
-          # would silently disable the coverage gate.
+          # Forks have no token, so upload failures cannot block contributors.
           fail_ci_if_error: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.repo.fork != true }}
 
-  # Always runs, so branch protection has a context that reliably posts even
-  # when the test job is correctly skipped for non-website changes.
+  # Stable branch-protection context when tests are skipped.
   website-unit-gate:
     needs: [changes, website-unit]
     if: ${{ always() }}
@@ -77,9 +71,7 @@ jobs:
             echo "Website unit tests passed."
             exit 0
           fi
-          # Only a deliberate skip counts as a pass: the filter itself must
-          # have succeeded and reported nothing relevant changed. Otherwise a
-          # failed filter job would silently satisfy this gate.
+          # Pass skipped tests only after successful filtering found no relevant changes.
           if [ "$UNIT_RESULT" = "skipped" ] &&
              [ "$CHANGES_RESULT" = "success" ] &&
              [ "$WEBSITE_CHANGED" != "true" ] &&

apps/website/README.md

@@ -36,10 +36,6 @@ inline that into the client bundle).
 This repo's `.github/workflows/*.yaml` changes cannot be pushed by a
 GitHub App. A maintainer must apply the following edits **once**:
 
-Unit tests are no longer part of this list — they run in
-`.github/workflows/ci-website-unit.yaml`, which also uploads coverage to
-Codecov under the `website-unit` flag.
-
 **`.github/workflows/ci-website-build.yaml`** — pass the env into the
 build step:
 

apps/website/vitest.config.ts

@@ -23,8 +23,7 @@ export default defineConfig({
       provider: 'v8',
       reporter: ['text', 'lcov'],
       reportsDirectory: './coverage',
-      // Load-bearing: without it, untested files are absent from the report
-      // rather than counted as 0%, so patch coverage passes on untested code.
+      // Include untested files so patch coverage counts them as 0%.
       include: ['src/**/*.{ts,vue}'],
       exclude: [
         'src/**/*.{test,spec}.ts',

codecov.yml

@@ -1,9 +1,7 @@
 coverage:
   status:
     project:
-      # Scoped to the pre-existing uploads so that adding the website report
-      # (which starts near 22%) cannot drag this status down and fail PRs
-      # that never touched the website.
+      # Keep website coverage from lowering the existing frontend status.
       default:
         target: auto
         flags:
@@ -24,13 +22,11 @@ coverage:
       default:
         informational: true
 
-      # The enforcing gate: lines changed under apps/website must be covered.
-      # Deliberately patch-based — it asks "is the code you just wrote
-      # tested?" rather than punishing authors for pre-existing gaps.
+      # Require 80% coverage on changed website lines.
       website:
         target: '80%'
         threshold: '0%'
-        informational: true
+        informational: false
         flags:
           - website-unit
         paths:
@@ -54,8 +50,7 @@ flags:
     carryforward: true
   e2e:
     carryforward: true
-  # No carryforward: the website job is the sole authority for these paths, so
-  # a missing upload must never be papered over with stale coverage.
+  # Do not hide missing website coverage with stale data.
   website-unit:
     paths:
       - apps/website/src/**