feat: Extract available options/items for selection components in page scanner

[gethinwebster]

Description

Add DOM-based extraction of available options/items to the page scanner for selection-style components. This enables page scanner consumers to see all available choices on a page, not just the currently selected ones.

Components affected:

• awsui.RadioGroup / awsui.Tiles / awsui.Cards: new options property — Array<{value, label, description?}>
• awsui.Tabs: new tabs property — Array<{value, label, disabled?}>
• awsui.Table: new rows property — Array<Array<string>> (opt-in via includeAllTableRows option)

API change:
getComponentsTree now accepts an optional second parameter GetComponentsTreeOptions:

interface GetComponentsTreeOptions {
  includeAllTableRows?: boolean;
}
getComponentsTree(node?, options?)

The extraction uses stable ARIA semantics (aria-labelledby, aria-label, aria-describedby, aria-disabled) and existing DOM structure — no changes required to component source code.

Related links, issue #, if available: n/a

How has this been tested?

• 9 new unit tests covering all extraction helpers (RadioGroup, Tiles, Cards, Tabs with disabled state, Table rows with/without opt-in)
• All 107 existing unit tests continue to pass
• TypeScript compilation passes cleanly
• Full build passes

Review checklist

Correctness

• Changes are backward-compatible — getComponentsTree second parameter is optional, existing callers are unaffected.
• No new browser features used — relies on standard DOM APIs (querySelectorAll, getAttribute, getElementById).
• No accessibility impact — read-only extraction, no DOM mutations.

Testing

• Changes are covered with new unit tests (9 tests in metadata-utils.test.ts).
• Integration tests not applicable — page scanner is a utility function.

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.97%. Comparing base (7794be8) to head (9cf66dc).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #219      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.90%   98.97%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          44       44              
  Lines        1190     1272      +82     
  Branches      320      348      +28     
==========================================
+ Hits         1177     1259      +82     
  Misses         12       12              
  Partials        1        1              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[gethinwebster]

"Components unit tests" are expected to fail, as those are snapshot tests that use/verify this scanner output. To merge we will temporarily disable checks then update snapshot & re-enable.

[avinashbot]

Why does only table have its item fetched gated behind an opt-in flag? The other component types add context by default.

Also, is it worth checking the component metadata name like we do for the other components below?

[gethinwebster]

Table data could potentially be relatively large, so I want to be cautious about performance and ensure it's only extracted if requested.

The metadata name check is there a few lines above

[avinashbot]

Ah, it's nested, didn't realize!