Fix lots of spelling errors #7751
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, @peternewman! I noted a handful of places where I think we might want to keep the original spelling but this is a great cleanup.
| @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ bool BinaryAndJsonConformanceSuite::ParseJsonResponse( | |||
|
|
|||
| if (!test_message->ParseFromString(binary_protobuf)) { | |||
| GOOGLE_LOG(FATAL) << "INTERNAL ERROR: internal JSON->protobuf transcode " | |||
| << "yielded unparseable proto."; | |||
| << "yielded unparsable proto."; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say let's leave "unparseable" as it is--both spellings seem to be acceptable, and at least within Google the "unparseable" spelling is somewhat more common.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay will do, going through protobuf I've generated a PR to improve our dictionaries so I'll check this and perhaps make it more rare too codespell-project/codespell#1602
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of interest, do you have a source for that? I've tried various dictionary searches and Wiktionary seems to be the only real hit for the ea spelling? There's also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Lists_of_common_misspellings/P#parseable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For info I made the whole codebase consistent:
534ecf7
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have a good public source, but I found that "parseable" has about 60% more usage in Google's internal monorepo compared to "parsable". It does seem like English dictionaries tend to prefer "parsable", though. Since there's no clear winner, I would say let's just leave the spellings as they are and not try to make them all consistent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Curiously all the unparsable have no middle e. The pars(e)able's are 6/8 split. Anyway reverted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Edit, obviously I'd made some of those changes, having reverted it's 18 spellings with an e and just 6 without. src/google/protobuf/compiler/parser_unittest.cc even manages to have both spellings in the same file!
Anyway all unpicked and ready for re-review.
This reverts commit 534ecf7.
|
@peternewman Thanks for cleaning up these spelling errors! |
No worries @acozzette . #7752 adds an actual codespell action to keep these fixes there, here's some example output: |
* Fix a typo * Fix lots of spelling errors * Fix a few more spelling mistakes * s/parsable/parseable/ * Don't touch the third party files * Cloneable is the preferred C# term * Copyable is the preferred C++ term * Revert "s/parsable/parseable/" This reverts commit 534ecf7. * Revert unparseable->unparsable corrections
Brought to you by codespell v2.1.0, using the command codespell -S .cache,vendor -L ot,ba,fo,unparseable -w Note that the misspelled "unparseable" comes from the github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf, where it is explicitly ignored (see [1] and some explanation at [2]), so we ignore it here, too. [1] protocolbuffers/protobuf#7752 [2] protocolbuffers/protobuf#7751 (comment) Change-Id: Ie1ca705db4f11df8ec8b22fdc22b6a6ee667ae5b Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/protobuf/+/406845 Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com> Reviewed-by: Lasse Folger <lassefolger@google.com>
* Fix a typo * Fix lots of spelling errors * Fix a few more spelling mistakes * s/parsable/parseable/ * Don't touch the third party files * Cloneable is the preferred C# term * Copyable is the preferred C++ term * Revert "s/parsable/parseable/" This reverts commit 534ecf7. * Revert unparseable->unparsable corrections
No description provided.