build(deps-dev): bump @tailwindcss/vite from 4.3.2 to 4.3.3

[dependabot]

Bumps @tailwindcss/vite from 4.3.2 to 4.3.3.

Release notes

Sourced from @​tailwindcss/vite's releases.

v4.3.3

Fixed

• Support --watch --poll[=ms] in @tailwindcss/cli when filesystem events are unreliable or unavailable (#20297)
• Canonicalization: match arbitrary hex colors against theme colors case-insensitively (e.g. bg-[#fff] and bg-[#FFF] → bg-white) (#20298)
• Prevent Preflight from overriding Firefox's native iframe:focus-visible outline styles (#20292)
• Ensure theme('colors.foo') in JS plugins resolves correctly when both --color-foo and --color-foo-bar exist (#20299)
• Ensure fractional opacity modifiers work with named shadow sizes like shadow-sm/12.5, text-shadow-sm/12.5, drop-shadow-sm/12.5, and inset-shadow-sm/12.5 (#20302)
• Parse selectors like [data-foo]div as two selectors instead of one (#20303)
• Ensure @tailwindcss/postcss rebuilds when a preprocessor like Sass changes the input CSS without changing the input file on disk (#20310)
• Ensure CSS nesting is handled even when Lightning CSS isn't run, such as in @tailwindcss/browser and Tailwind Play (#20124)
• Prevent achromatic theme colors from shifting hue when mixed in polar color spaces like oklch (#20314)
• Ensure --spacing(0) is optimized to 0px instead of 0 so it remains a <length> when used in calc(…) (#20319)
• Load @parcel/watcher only when needed in @tailwindcss/cli --watch mode, so one-off builds and --watch --poll work when @parcel/watcher can't be loaded (#20325)
• Use explicit platform fonts instead of system-ui and ui-sans-serif so CJK text respects the page's lang attribute on Windows (#20318)
• Prevent @tailwindcss/upgrade from rewriting ignored files when run from a subdirectory (#20329)
• Ensure earlier @source rules pointing to nested files are scanned when later @source rules point to files in parent folders (#20335)
• Prevent @tailwindcss/vite from triggering full page reloads when scanned files are processed by Vite but haven't been loaded as modules yet (#20336)

Changelog

Sourced from @​tailwindcss/vite's changelog.

[4.3.3] - 2026-07-16

Fixed

• Support --watch --poll[=ms] in @tailwindcss/cli when filesystem events are unreliable or unavailable (#20297)
• Canonicalization: match arbitrary hex colors against theme colors case-insensitively (e.g. bg-[#fff] and bg-[#FFF] → bg-white) (#20298)
• Prevent Preflight from overriding Firefox's native iframe:focus-visible outline styles (#20292)
• Ensure theme('colors.foo') in JS plugins resolves correctly when both --color-foo and --color-foo-bar exist (#20299)
• Ensure fractional opacity modifiers work with named shadow sizes like shadow-sm/12.5, text-shadow-sm/12.5, drop-shadow-sm/12.5, and inset-shadow-sm/12.5 (#20302)
• Parse selectors like [data-foo]div as two selectors instead of one (#20303)
• Ensure @tailwindcss/postcss rebuilds when a preprocessor like Sass changes the input CSS without changing the input file on disk (#20310)
• Ensure CSS nesting is handled even when Lightning CSS isn't run, such as in @tailwindcss/browser and Tailwind Play (#20124)
• Prevent achromatic theme colors from shifting hue when mixed in polar color spaces like oklch (#20314)
• Ensure --spacing(0) is optimized to 0px instead of 0 so it remains a <length> when used in calc(…) (#20319)
• Load @parcel/watcher only when needed in @tailwindcss/cli --watch mode, so one-off builds and --watch --poll work when @parcel/watcher can't be loaded (#20325)
• Use explicit platform fonts instead of system-ui and ui-sans-serif so CJK text respects the page's lang attribute on Windows (#20318)
• Prevent @tailwindcss/upgrade from rewriting ignored files when run from a subdirectory (#20329)
• Ensure earlier @source rules pointing to nested files are scanned when later @source rules point to files in parent folders (#20335)
• Prevent @tailwindcss/vite from triggering full page reloads when scanned files are processed by Vite but haven't been loaded as modules yet (#20336)

Commits

• c2b24dd 4.3.3 (#20334)
• bdcd708 Don't trigger a full page reload for scanned files that Vite processes as mod...
• See full diff in compare view

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@dependabot[bot], you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 59 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 31e95ff4-8f5d-43af-bd7c-f12a4290ea83

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between acdbea6 and 0c74926.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• apps/desktop/package.json

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[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 0c74926714d0b9fff04d5991a89075ecbc730645.

• Head SHA: 0c74926714d0b9fff04d5991a89075ecbc730645

• Workflow run: 31053832309

• 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 8069099e7fa7cd1b4cb0732f1040b6f26cf92c0e
• Workflow run: 31836100201
• 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 8069099e7fa7cd1b4cb0732f1040b6f26cf92c0e.

• Head SHA: 8069099e7fa7cd1b4cb0732f1040b6f26cf92c0e

• Workflow run: 31836100201

• 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

@coderabbitai review
@cwl-noema-review
@opencode-agent

Review the exact live head only. Verify @tailwindcss/vite 4.3.3 is lockfile-consistent with Tailwind core, preserves the existing Vite integration and CSS output, includes no duplicate version skew, and passes lint, strict typecheck, complete tests/coverage, Storybook/production builds, audit, and security gates. Review only; do not update the branch, merge, release, or alter protections.

[coderabbitai]

Rate Limit Exceeded

@seonghobae have exceeded the limit for the number of chat messages per hour. Please wait 20 minutes and 12 seconds before sending another message.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent address

Use this PR as the single aligned Tailwind maintenance slice on exact head 0c74926714d0b9fff04d5991a89075ecbc730645. The npm registry currently publishes both tailwindcss and @tailwindcss/vite at 4.3.3; update the two direct devDependencies together and regenerate the root npm v3 workspace lock with the repository-supported Node/npm toolchain.

Keep the diff bounded to the aligned Tailwind graph. Revert unrelated npm classification churn and opportunistic transitive updates that are not required by a clean install from the changed manifests. Add or update a deterministic dependency-alignment/lock-scope contract so the core package and Vite integration cannot drift to different versions and unrelated lock metadata changes fail review. Prove desktop lint/typecheck/tests with 100% coverage, Tailwind/Vite production build, representative Korean/English CSS output, npm audit, SBOM, and all security gates. Preserve application behavior, permissions, credentials, reviewer/model routing, and release metadata; no nested lockfile or temporary writer workflow. Stop without mutation if the live head differs before writing. After a green exact head and fresh review, #761 can be closed as superseded.

[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 734356ff78376ad3cb1314959176d2ae19c5bd46.

• Head SHA: 734356ff78376ad3cb1314959176d2ae19c5bd46

• Workflow run: 31576041033

• 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

@dependabot recreate

[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 8069099e7fa7cd1b4cb0732f1040b6f26cf92c0e.

• Head SHA: 8069099e7fa7cd1b4cb0732f1040b6f26cf92c0e

• Workflow run: 31832918852

• 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 (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 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 8069099e7fa7cd1b4cb0732f1040b6f26cf92c0e.

• Head SHA: 8069099e7fa7cd1b4cb0732f1040b6f26cf92c0e

• Workflow run: 31836100201

• 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Fresh exact head 8069099e7fa7cd1b4cb0732f1040b6f26cf92c0e is not merge-ready even apart from the central coverage prerequisite. The advertised @tailwindcss/vite 4.3.3 update legitimately advances the Tailwind 4.3.3 runtime/oxide family, but the generated root lock also strips peer: true from every root node_modules/@esbuild/* platform record. Canonical dependency baseline #783 now rejects that generator-sensitive metadata loss.

This PR also materially overlaps #761: advancing @tailwindcss/vite to 4.3.3 resolves tailwindcss and the native oxide family to 4.3.3 while #761 separately advances the direct tailwindcss manifest entry. After #783 reaches protected develop, converge #758/#761 onto one current-base Tailwind 4.3.3 family update (or prove one canonical branch preserves both direct manifest intents), generated by the approved npm toolchain and preserving the #783 lock-metadata sentinel. Do not hand-edit the current lock or merge either branch before that convergence and fresh exact-head gates.