Target size minimum

[Jym77]

Add rules for "Target Size (minimum)" and "Target Size (enhanced)" Success Criteria.

These are set up as composite rules in order to share the exceptions that are shareable.

"Target Size (minimum)" is messy due to the spacing condition that has to be failing in all Failed example, thus requiring quite a bit of scaffholding.

Closes issue(s):

• closes Add target size enhanced rule #1919 (supercedes it)

Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 2 weeks Call for Review (new rules 🎉)

---

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

• Make sure you're requesting to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).
• Make sure you do not remove the "How to Review and Approve" section in your pull request description

After creating PR:

• Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
• Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
• Link the PR to any issue it solves. This will be done automatically by referencing the issue at the top of this comment in the indicated place.
• Optionally request feedback from anyone in particular by assigning them as "Reviewers".

When merging a PR:

• Close any issue that the PR resolves. This will happen automatically upon merging if the PR was correctly linked to the issue, e.g. by referencing the issue at the top of this comment.

How to Review And Approve

• Go to the “Files changed” tab
• Here you will have the option to leave comments on different lines.
• Once the review is completed, find the “Review changes” button in the top right, select “Approve” (if you are really confident in the rule) or "Request changes" and click “Submit review”.
• Make sure to also review the proposed Call for Review period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

[Jym77]

(prettier changes should be fixed by #2173)

[tbostic32]

@Jym77 would it be possible to split this PR into several smaller PRs? It would just help us to push some of the rules along without having to wait for us to review all of them.

@tombrunet Pinging you for SA

[Jym77]

@Jym77 would it be possible to split this PR into several smaller PRs? It would just help us to push some of the rules along without having to wait for us to review all of them.

@tbostic32 I'm not sure it would make sense to review the atomic rules in isolation, plus there would be confusion around the shared definitions (they would either be duplicated in all PRs, with merge conflict nightmare upcoming, or be missing from some which makes them harder to read).

But I do agree the resulting PR is quite huge 😖

[dd8]

Is there anywhere we can view the built HTML for this branch? The diffs are so big they're hard to read, and since it's a new rule the whole thing needs reviewed as a whole.

[tbostic32]

I need some more background here. I'm not sure I understand what this rule is trying to do or really even how the S.C. are being applied.

[daniel-montalvo]

Is there anywhere we can view the built HTML for this branch? The diffs are so big they're hard to read, and since it's a new rule the whole thing needs reviewed as a whole.

@dd8 -- We are working on setting up a Netlify site for https://act-rules.github.io
We can have each PR built and deployed, which will hopefully improve things.

[Jym77]

@tbostic32 I'm trying the "split" approach, by isolating one of the rules in #2182. That rule makes little sense in isolation, but hopefully will be easier to review and merge nonetheless.

We've also looked at getting PR-publish. It's a very good idea overall, but a bit tricky with our Github pages publish workflow (especially since it has been broken for a couple of years) See #2183 for some investigation.