New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
lint: add typos check #1888
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
lint: add typos check #1888
Conversation
I've noticed a considerable number of areas in the diff where correct names are made incorrect ("rela" stands for "relative" and I don't think there are any occurrences where it should be changed to "real", and there are some others). This is not limited to the GPG signature and project-name cases that you've identified. In addition, I'm not sure any changes should be made in files in However, I've also noticed that you've marked this as a draft, and maybe you aware of the other issues. If you think it would be helpful for me to leave a review with comments on the individual problematic cases, I'd be pleased to do so. Otherwise I will assume as long as this is a draft that such a review might be more of a distraction than a help, and refrain from it. There are also some areas where at least the fixes are clearly a huge improvement, particularly in |
To make sure it is not lost track of, and also to report the results of some manual testing because the affected xfail markings cover some things not produced on CI, I've opened #1893 for the bug you've discovered in Although those are definitely not the only typos found here that should be fixed, it seems to me that their elevated importance and relationship to the correctness of the tests justifies a separate PR to fix them, especially if such a PR would result in their being fixed sooner (and then they would no longer have to be worried about here). If you are amenable to this idea, then I suggest opening that, as you deserve the credit for it. But I would be pleased to open that PR instead if you prefer (I would list you in the While another option may be to wait for the change to come in with this PR, I think it is better that it not be delayed while figuring out if and how automated spell checking can be added safely and with an acceptably low rate of false positives. |
Thanks for sharing this draft, I am happy it could already find a genuine issue (#1893) despite a high rate of false positives. Thank you |
With my other projects, I have been using several typing tools, and this seems to be at first, lower effort, but as mentioned, it produces a significant number of false positives, and with the next version, there could be even more (just opened issues for crate-ci/typos#966 and crate-ci/typos#969) So I'll open a separate PR for the fixes and most likely pivot this PR to use another typing alternative :) |
…into precommit/typos
pivoting to https://github.com/codespell-project/codespell |
@EliahKagan @Byron, would you mind having a look at the updated version? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for making it happen!
Now it looks like the tool is usable, and it's nice to see that it caught a couple of real errors.
I will wait for @EliahKagan approval though before merging in case I am missing some more obscure aspects of the tool and as it's integrated into the tooling of GitPython.
Just a suggestion to add a check for typos and maybe let's fix some without breaking API