Implement GHA workflow that scans website file tree for spelling errors#187
Draft
Implement GHA workflow that scans website file tree for spelling errors#187
Conversation
eecavanna
changed the title
This was referenced Feb 5, 2025
Collaborator
Author
|
Progress! Lots of files are being spellchecked. Next steps:
|
TODO: Consider applying this "allow list" in a case-insensitive way.
This was referenced Feb 21, 2025
This was referenced Feb 23, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This branch contains a work-in-progress GHA workflow designed to perform spell checking on the assembled website file tree.
In its current state (at the time of this writing), the spell checker on this branch is (a) not scanning all the files I expect it to and (b) scanning HTML tags as though they are English words, resulting in false claims of spelling errors (i.e. false positives).
These changes were initially part of #157, but were removed so we could merge in the parts of that PR branch that were already working correctly. The changes were written by a combination of @kaijli and @eecavanna.