grid vs. treegrid allowed row attributes

Expectation: aria-posinset, aria-setsize, aria-expanded, and aria-level should all be allowed on role="row", but only when descending from a treegrid.

Actual: aria-posinset and aria-setsize always cause an allowed attribute error on row, while aria-expanded and aria-level never do.

You can see the false positives on the aria-practices example on this page: https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/examples/treegrid/treegrid-1.html. If you change the parent role to grid then run the test again, you can see that aria-expanded and aria-level are not flagged.

Motivation: Valid treegrid attributes are getting errors flagged, resulting in a stream of bad bugs, and some easily-caught errors like aria-expanded or aria-level on grids and tables are not flagged.

axe-core version: 4.1.1

[straker]

We recently merged a PR that allows aria-posinset and aria-setsize to be allowed on row elements to remove the false positive. We’ll work on another PR which will scope the attributes to just treegrid and warn the user if they use it on grid or table.

[jessiehuff]

I completely agree with @smhigley here. We’re trying to build out this structure in Red Hat’s design system, PatternFly, and we’ve been running into this issue. We currently have axe-core running against our CI/CD build so the PR we had that follows the previous example shared, was being flagged as failing. (This is a preview of our implementation.) We set it to ignore that specific example since it seems to be the best structure we tested, but we worry about the other products who might use this variation. We’ve been encouraging Red Hat products to also check their build against axe-core so we’re concerned that they might see these failures and be confused. I’d love to see these attributes supported!