Spelling

[jsoref]

This PR corrects misspellings identified by the check-spelling action.

The misspellings have been reported at jsoref@5960a49#commitcomment-49670375

The action reports that the changes in this PR would make it happy: jsoref@3d59a7c

[dscho]

The fixture should probably not be changed, as it is a verbatim copy of a mail that has been sent to the Git mailing list.

If it helps, though, by shutting up some spell-correction check, I'm okay with applying this as-is.

I'll leave @webstech some time to chime in.

[dscho]

Technically, this is incorrect, as I copied this email verbatim. Changing it would no longer be verbatim.

In practice, it probably does not matter much, so I'm fine with this change anyway.

[dscho]

Same here.

[dscho]

And here.

[dscho]

And here.

[jsoref]

gitgitgadget/.github/actions/spelling/excludes.txt

Lines 7 to 8 in 5960a49

	\.lock$
	\.min\.

The tool would be happy to ignore files matching \.mbox$ if that's preferable. It doesn't matter to me.

I start my contributions with small things to learn how to make contributions in general. (I have thoughts about the actual content of this repository, but if I can't figure out how to make a tiny contribution here, it wouldn't make sense for me to try to send something more significant.)

I do not understand how this repository works. Nor do I understand how contributing to the git repository works -- gitgitgadget/git#934 (comment).

So I'm not going to do anything in response to either until someone says something akin to "please make this change".

[webstech]

@dscho I do not have an issue with the changes to the 'verbatim' email copy. It could be changed in the future to add additional tests.

@jsoref I see that you are associated with the check-spelling action. You mentioned the git repo in your last comment. Do you think these repos needs a spell check? There are only two spelling errors (guilty of one) in this repo. Are you going to contribute corrections or want to introduce check-spelling into the workflow,?

[jsoref]

@webstech: I generally don't offer the workflow unsolicited. I'm happy to contribute it. I think most repositories benefit from having a spell checker. Two typos is definitely on the low side, but typically the count grows as a project grows (projects can easily exceed 100 or 1000 with size and age).

[dscho]

I generally don't offer the workflow unsolicited. I'm happy to contribute it

That would be great!

Is it possible to somehow combine the configuration with cSpell's? We have a ton of cSpell configuration:

gitgitgadget/.vscode/settings.json

Lines 19 to 110 in 8dd519c

	"cSpell.words": [
	"Arnfjörð",
	"Bjarmason",
	"Cygwin",
	"Git's",
	"Hamano",
	"ISMTP",
	"Junio",
	"Nguy",
	"Nguyễn",
	"Ngọc",
	"Pratyush",
	"Probot",
	"Schindelin",
	"Thái",
	"Truthy",
	"VSTS",
	"Yadav",
	"addressparser",
	"amlog",
	"autocrlf",
	"avarab",
	"basedon",
	"busybox",
	"coverageprocessor",
	"dstolee",
	"dugite",
	"eqeqeq",
	"fooba",
	"gitgitgadget",
	"gitster",
	"gmail",
	"gmane",
	"googlegroups",
	"imaps",
	"insn",
	"isnan",
	"issuecomment",
	"latesttag",
	"latesttags",
	"libqp",
	"maildir",
	"mailsplit",
	"maint",
	"mbox",
	"mergeable",
	"octo",
	"octokit",
	"onelines",
	"pclouds",
	"pobox",
	"promisify",
	"publishtoremote",
	"rebased",
	"refname",
	"repo",
	"smee",
	"smtp",
	"stolee",
	"stripspace",
	"superset",
	"taggerdate",
	"tbdiff",
	"unportable",
	"vger",
	"webhook",
	"webhooks",
	"worktree",
	"yadavpratyush",
	"Ævar"
	],
	"cSpell.ignoreRegExpList": [
	"CIimapHost",
	"CIsmtphost",
	"CIsmtppass",
	"CIsmtpopts",
	"users\\.noreply\\.github\\.com",
	],
	"cSpell.language": "en-US",
	"cSpell.enabledLanguageIds": [
	"git-commit",
	"html",
	"javascript",
	"json",
	"markdown",
	"plaintext",
	"typescript"
	],
	"cSpell.ignorePaths": [
	"node_modules",
	"**/node_modules"
	]

[jsoref]

@webstech, @dscho: this is the current commit for the action: jsoref@spell-check

I'm hoping to release 0.0.18-alpha this week. I just finished off one added feature for it. I need to do a bit more testing (including end user testing), update some graphics (usability thing), and write release notes.

I think the most interesting thing I've seen in cSpell is that it has
Area dictionaries, which has been on my to-do list for a while. I'll probably try to just add direct support for them for the release after the pending one -- it shouldn't be much work since I already have a default code path to retrieve the main dictionary.

Would you want an "Issue" for this to track the task, or should it just sit until I'm ready?

[dscho]

this is the current commit for the action: jsoref@spell-c

Great!

One thing, though: rather than committing the documentation for the spell checker (e.g. README.md), maybe we can have a link in the commit message instead?

Speaking of commit messages: this is a great place to fill in the interested reader about background (such as: where it was suggested to use it, what PR was necessary because the check was not yet added, etc).

the most interesting thing I've seen in cSpell is that it has
Area dictionaries, which has been on my to-do list for a while.

I was mostly interested in learning whether there is a way we can provide those patterns that works both for cSpell and that GitHub Action, without having to duplicate the lists.

Would you want an "Issue" for this to track the task, or should it just sit until I'm ready?

How about a PR? You can mark it as "Draft" to indicate that you're not done with it yet.

[jsoref]

To the other bit about cSpell, I haven't spent much time thinking about the best way to interoperate with them. Definitely being able to borrow their dictionaries would be nice. Supporting their entire configuration languages might be a bit much. Generally there's a pretty straightforward mapping between spell checkers since they all more or less have to do the same things:

• define a dictionary (+supplements) (-removals) -- these can be proprietary binary formats or plain text (I use single word per line, cSpell seems to use single term per line -- where a term can include spaces)
• define files to check (-exclusions) -- I use regular expressions, some projects use globs (some use gitignore)
• define patterns (typically regular expressions) to ignore content
• list of non dictionary words that aren't problematic
• help users interact w/ the tool

And possibly handle multiple programming languages differently. -- My current plan for this is that the spell-checker would use GHA matrix for the different languages. But I haven't run into a case where it's mattered enough (as opposed to just merging multiple dictionaries). I plan to experiment with this more for llvm (whose running time is currently way too long).

[dscho]

Supporting their entire configuration languages might be a bit much.

Right. I am too unfamiliar with cSpell to know the answer off the top of my head to the question whether it is possible to provide those pattern lists as plain .txt files. That would definitely make it most convenient to share the same lists between different spell checkers.