-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
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
Allow alternative to codespell in sp-repo-review #459
Comments
Codespell does support auto-fixes.
Absolutely. We already do this with black/ruff, flake8/ruff, nox/tox/hatch/spin, etc. |
👍🏼
I am not too familiar with the repo-review part of this project. However, I could try to submit a corresponding PR based on how this is handled for the other combinations of tools. |
Well, I would have said PR, but I see a bit of cleanup I could do on the base class. It's at cookie/src/sp_repo_review/checks/precommit.py Lines 48 to 64 in 2f1d453
|
PC160
currently suggests the use ofcodespell
in pre-commit.However, codespell can be quite slow at times and can easily miss certain typos.
While looking for alternatives, I stumbled upon the crate-ci/typos repository that is also used by ruff in favor of codespell.
The tool has quite an easy config scheme, is drastically faster, and also provides auto-fix support. Furthermore, it caught at least some additional typos that were not spotted by codespell when we introduced the new tool for our framework (cda-tum/mqt-core#625).
Right now, the use of the
crate-ci/typos
in favor ofcodespell
requires us to ignore"PC160"
.Would it make sense to expand the scope of the rule a little bit to something like "Uses a spellchecker" and allow for codespell and/or
crate-ci/typos
to be used?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: