spell check

spell check

[Thomas Monjalon]

Hi,

After some thoughts, I think it is not reasonable to check spelling
in the CI, because we will always have false positives.

Please could we disable "ci/iol-spell-check-testing" to avoid warnings?

Re: spell check

[Lincoln Lavoie]

Hi Thomas,

This has been disabled in the lab.   I think it should be possible to get
to a base state where there aren't errors, it just requires getting past
all of the acronyms and other "strange" (to a spell checker's prospective)
parts of the documentation, like function names / prototypes, etc.

Part of the idea behind putting the spell checker scripts, and more
importantly the dictionary and exceptions, into the devtools would be to
allow the community to manage that list of exceptions, etc.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 3:54 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After some thoughts, I think it is not reasonable to check spelling
> in the CI, because we will always have false positives.
>
> Please could we disable "ci/iol-spell-check-testing" to avoid warnings?
>
>
>

-- 
*Lincoln Lavoie*
Principal Engineer, Broadband Technologies
21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824
lylavoie@iol.unh.edu
https://www.iol.unh.edu
+1-603-674-2755 (m)
<https://www.iol.unh.edu>

Re: spell check

[Thomas Monjalon]

16/11/2021 14:46, Lincoln Lavoie:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> This has been disabled in the lab.   I think it should be possible to get
> to a base state where there aren't errors, it just requires getting past
> all of the acronyms and other "strange" (to a spell checker's prospective)
> parts of the documentation, like function names / prototypes, etc.

There will be always new exceptions.
It looks more worry than benefit.

> Part of the idea behind putting the spell checker scripts, and more
> importantly the dictionary and exceptions, into the devtools would be to
> allow the community to manage that list of exceptions, etc.

I'm not sure it's good to add this requirement on contributors.

Anyway that's a topic for techboard meeting.


> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 3:54 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > After some thoughts, I think it is not reasonable to check spelling
> > in the CI, because we will always have false positives.
> >
> > Please could we disable "ci/iol-spell-check-testing" to avoid warnings?

Re: spell check

[Aaron Conole]

Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> writes:

> 16/11/2021 14:46, Lincoln Lavoie:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> 
>> This has been disabled in the lab.   I think it should be possible to get
>> to a base state where there aren't errors, it just requires getting past
>> all of the acronyms and other "strange" (to a spell checker's prospective)
>> parts of the documentation, like function names / prototypes, etc.
>
> There will be always new exceptions.
> It looks more worry than benefit.
>
>> Part of the idea behind putting the spell checker scripts, and more
>> importantly the dictionary and exceptions, into the devtools would be to
>> allow the community to manage that list of exceptions, etc.
>
> I'm not sure it's good to add this requirement on contributors.
>
> Anyway that's a topic for techboard meeting.

I'll make sure to ask about it.

>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 3:54 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > After some thoughts, I think it is not reasonable to check spelling
>> > in the CI, because we will always have false positives.
>> >
>> > Please could we disable "ci/iol-spell-check-testing" to avoid warnings?