Install specific version of codespell #45851
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
As the codespell dictionary changes between versions, we should declare explicitly the version we are ready for so that this CI doesn't break every time there is a new version. Ideally this would be upgraded periodically to catch new errors, but I don't think the need is urgent enough for us to fail CI on PRs.
skipkayhil
pushed a commit
to skipkayhil/rails
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 30, 2022
Install specific version of codespell
Merged
yahonda
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 30, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As the codespell dictionary changes between versions, we should declare explicitly the version we are ready for so that this CI doesn't break every time there is a new version.
Ideally this would be upgraded periodically to catch new errors, but I don't think the need is urgent enough for us to fail CI on PRs. I think this is better than the alternative (letting it fail until someone gets around to fixing it) because it's likely we'll accidentally merge new typos while it fails.