doc/release-notes.md from lint-spelling.py
#33968
/doc/release-notes/ is ignored, but during release branch-off, the latest release is copied to doc/release-notes.md. This means that CI runs based off of the branch off point (e.g., for backport dev) will fail CI if there are spelling errors, or if there are e.g. contributors names that resemble spelling errors (not a hypothetical example).
`/doc/release-notes/` is ignored, but during release branch-off, the latest release is copied to `doc/release-notes.md`. This means that CI runs based off of the branch off point (e.g., for backport dev) will fail CI if there are spelling errors, or if there are e.g. contributors names that resemble spelling errors (not a hypothetical example).
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/33968.
See the guideline for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers |
|---|---|
| User requested bot ignore | maflcko |
If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!–meta-tag:bot-skip–> into the comment that the bot should ignore.
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
(not a hypothetical example).
I tried searching for a real example in the past, but I couldn’t find one: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=%22LLM+reason+%28%E2%9C%A8+experimental%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-desc+is%3Apr+draft%3Afalse+label%3ABackport+is%3Aclosed+
Not sure how much value there is in codespell at this point, given the LLM typo linter, so codespell could even be removed fully. It also seems fine to keep as-is and deal with true and false positives in the backport pull request, when there is need.
Also, seems fine to exclude it, like here. No strong opinion, but lgtm ACK 6494713d2d48926066972376df44a0b6166a223a
0<!--meta-tag:bot-skip-->
so codespell could even be removed fully
It does seem to cause more problems than it’s solving, I’d vote for that instead
will fail CI if there are spelling errors
I don’t think this is true either. The comment in the file literally says:
Note: Will exit successfully regardless of spelling errors.
I guess it’s not a failure, as it only pops up when other issues flag, but it does get reported in CI as:
0^---- ⚠️ Failure generated from lint-tests.py
1doc/release-notes.md:379: Atack ==> Attack
which is sort of confusing
That could be fixed by rewording, or changing the spacing, maybe something like:
0diff --git a/test/lint/test_runner/src/main.rs b/test/lint/test_runner/src/main.rs
1index 5c65fcad89..39ae9dc815 100644
2--- a/test/lint/test_runner/src/main.rs
3+++ b/test/lint/test_runner/src/main.rs
4@@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ fn run_all_python_linters() -> LintResult {
5 .success()
6 {
7 good = false;
8- println!("^---- ⚠️ Failure generated from {entry_fn}");
9+ println!("^---- ⚠️ Failure generated from {entry_fn}\n\n");
10 }
11 }
12 if good {
no, it is not mergeable, because it is wrong. The CI does not fail when there are spelling errors, but this was mentioned above.
excluding the lint rule to release-notes.md as it is excluded to draft release notes,
Draft release notes are not excluded either.
Downgrading my review to a NACK for now. I think it could help if you supported your claims with exact steps to reproduce, so that the behavior is clear, and the bug that you are trying to fix is also clear and reproducible.
