doc: Fix typos pointed out by lint-spelling#24203
Conversation
094fc29 to
9255261
Compare
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ConflictsReviewers, 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. |
prusnak
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
utACK 9255261aba5663065abda29867078f0faa288cd7
shaavan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Concept ACK
I agree with @jonatack suggestion. This PR's scope should be broadened to correct all the lint spelling check instances, either by fixing the typo or marking the instances as false positive.
After the recent update of the PR. There are still three instances in the lint-spelling.sh test that needs to be addressed:
- nWe
- creat
- ba
I would also suggest renaming the PR heading to better to infer the new general goal of this PR.
These are all three false positives. Suggestion for fixing the --- a/src/rpc/blockchain.cpp
+++ b/src/rpc/blockchain.cpp
@@ -790,10 +790,10 @@ static RPCHelpMan getblockfrompeer()
{
return RPCHelpMan{
"getblockfrompeer",
- "Attempt to fetch block from a given peer.\n"
- "\nWe must have the header for this block, e.g. using submitheader.\n"
- "Subsequent calls for the same block and a new peer will cause the response from the previous peer to be ignored.\n"
- "\nReturns an empty JSON object if the request was successfully scheduled.",
+ "Attempt to fetch block from a given peer.\n\n"
+ "We must have the header for this block, e.g. using submitheader.\n"
+ "Subsequent calls for the same block and a new peer will cause the response from the previous peer to be ignored.\n\n"
+ "Returns an empty JSON object if the request was successfully scheduled.",
{
{"block_hash", RPCArg::Type::STR_HEX, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The block hash to try to fetch"},
{"peer_id", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The peer to fetch it from (see getpeerinfo for peer IDs)"}, |
|
Nice suggestion @prusnak for |
9255261 to
80045cf
Compare
80045cf to
bad0e7f
Compare
|
force-pushed addressing @prusnak's comments |
|
Suggestion --- a/test/lint/lint-spelling.ignore-words.txt
+++ b/test/lint/lint-spelling.ignore-words.txt
@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
asend
+ba
blockin
cachable
+creat
fo
fpr
hights( |
|
Concept ACK |
|
force-pushed addressing @jonatack's comments. Thank you for the reviews! |
PastaPastaPasta
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
utACK, it's good to fix this. The changes make sense, I did not validate that the linter output is clean now.
58ccc88 lint: add creat and ba into ignore-words for lint-spelling (brunoerg) bad0e7f doc: Fix typos pointed out by lint-spelling (brunoerg) Pull request description: Occuring -> occurring (random.h) Covert -> convert (chacha_poly_aead.cpp) Fix `nWe` false positive in blockchain.cpp (bitcoin#24203 (comment)) Got it by linter, other ones are false positives. ACKs for top commit: prusnak: ACK 58ccc88 Tree-SHA512: b350d0e64968b96ead226da0be6aa4ca3f8e482ae401697867684ce8478e96b954124b3dea6dcd697aad4206f209f32f238d7cf0a0589075f24f5cf629c563f3

Occuring -> occurring (random.h)
Covert -> convert (chacha_poly_aead.cpp)
Fix
nWefalse positive in blockchain.cpp (#24203 (comment))Got it by linter, other ones are false positives.