-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 221
Fix/spelling typos #1435
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Fix/spelling typos #1435
Conversation
…tion`, `exemption`
╭▸ ./libcst/matchers/_matcher_base.py:555:68
│
555 │ If the metadata provider is unresolved, a :class:`LookupError` exeption will be
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━
error: `exeption` should be `exception`, `exemption`
╭▸ ./libcst/matchers/_matcher_base.py:637:68
│
637 │ If the metadata provider is unresolved, a :class:`LookupError` exeption will be
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━
error: `provier` should be `provider`, `prover`
╭▸ ./libcst/metadata/tests/test_parent_node_provider.py:62:26
│
62 │ def test_parent_node_provier(self, code: str) -> None:
╰╴ ━━━━━━━
error: `provier` should be `provider`, `prover`
╭▸ ./libcst/metadata/tests/test_accessor_provider.py:66:23
│
66 │ def test_accessor_provier(self, code: str) -> None:
╰╴ ━━━━━━━
error: `wnat` should be `want`, `what`
╭▸ ./libcst/matchers/_matcher_base.py:1174:67
│
1174 │ # Our own match capture comes first, since we wnat to allow the same
╰╴ ━━━━
error: `preceeding` should be `preceding`, `proceeding`
╭▸ ./native/libcst/src/nodes/statement.rs:101:31
│
101 │ /// block. Statements own preceeding and same-line trailing comments, but not
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━━━
error: `exisitng` should be `existing`, `exiting`
╭▸ ./libcst/codemod/visitors/tests/test_add_imports.py:1005:34
│
1005 │ Should add new import at exisitng from import at top
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━
error: `preceeding` should be `preceding`, `proceeding`
╭▸ ./libcst/_nodes/statement.py:681:30
│
681 │ #: block. Statements own preceeding and same-line trailing comments, but not
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━━━
error: `collecter` should be `collector`, `collected`
╭▸ ./libcst/matchers/tests/test_visitors.py:449:24
│
449 │ def test_bad_visit_collecter_decorator(self) -> None:
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━━
error: `collecter` should be `collector`, `collected`
╭▸ ./libcst/matchers/tests/test_visitors.py:462:24
│
462 │ def test_bad_leave_collecter_decorator(self) -> None:
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━━
error: `preceeded` should be `preceded`, `proceeded`
╭▸ ./libcst/_nodes/whitespace.py:73:5
│
73 │ preceeded by a line continuation character (``\\``). It can contain zero or
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━━
error: `elipses` should be `ellipses`, `eclipses`, `ellipsis`
╭▸ ./libcst/_nodes/tests/test_atom.py:243:22
│
243 │ # Simple elipses
╰╴ ━━━━━━━
error: `elipses` should be `ellipses`, `eclipses`, `ellipsis`
╭▸ ./libcst/_nodes/tests/test_atom.py:250:29
│
250 │ # Parenthesized elipses
╰╴ ━━━━━━━
error: `preceeding` should be `preceding`, `proceeding`
╭▸ ./libcst/_nodes/statement.py:2754:30
│
2754 │ #: block. Statements own preceeding and same-line trailing comments, but not
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━━━
error: `preceeding` should be `preceding`, `proceeding`
╭▸ ./libcst/_nodes/expression.py:2136:51
│
2136 │ #: Optional sentinel that dictates parameters preceeding are positional-only
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━━━
itamaro
left a comment
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 for the PR.
it's touching 51 files, making it a bit difficult to review, and is mixing between safe fixes (e.g. in comments and docs) and fixes that aren't obviously safe (could break users relying on current spelling).
I suggest splitting the PR to a few smaller PRs for safe fixes, and maybe avoiding the unsafe fixes altogether.
Co-authored-by: Itamar Oren <[email protected]>
|
@itamaro You're right, it is touching a lot of files. How many touched files per PR would be a suitable upper limit for review? |
No hard rules here, but maybe 10-20 files per PR, depending on how many lines changed per file |
Summary
Corrected spelling mistakes (or at least standardized the spelling).
Test Plan
Spelling changes should not have affected any tests, so I don't expect that a test plan is needed. Let the CI/CD double check though.