Skip to content

Conversation

@galenseilis
Copy link
Contributor

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.

…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
     ╰╴                                                  ━━━━━━━━━━
@meta-cla meta-cla bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. label Dec 20, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@itamaro itamaro left a 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.

@galenseilis
Copy link
Contributor Author

@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?

@itamaro
Copy link
Contributor

itamaro commented Jan 10, 2026

@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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants