Expand the list of words 006spellcheck.t look for; fix the places where they are wrong.

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 2.20

Status

()

Bugzilla
Testing Suite
P3
enhancement
RESOLVED FIXED
16 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: CodeMachine, Assigned: Wurblzap)

Tracking

2.15
Bugzilla 2.20
Bug Flags:
approval +

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

16 years ago
We should check the source code for commonly mispelled words such as
'dependancy', 'bugzilla' (lower case), 'arbitary' and so on.  This would pick up
everything, comments, variables names, etc.

Hopefully we don't rely on any software or standards that require us to misspell
words ('referer' obviously), which would cause problems.

This is only looking for specific words, it is not a dictionary check in any
sense, and we certainly wouldn't go looking for spellings that are different
between different English dialects.

The background for this is bug #142792.
(Reporter)

Updated

16 years ago
Priority: -- → P3
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18

Comment 1

16 years ago
t/006spellcheck.t has been added to check for this. Reassigning to timeless who
was going to generate a list of things to look for and fix. 
Assignee: zach → timeless
Summary: Checking for mizspelings. → Develop list of words for 006spellcheck.t to look for
> We should check the source code for commonly mispelled words such as
> 'dependancy', 'bugzilla' (lower case), 'arbitary' and so on.  

Matty: why do you think that coding this will ever be the best use of any
Bugzilla engineer's time? :-)

Gerv
"varsion"

productmenu.js:161://     - f: a form containing product, component, varsion and
template/en/default/search/form.html.tmpl:242:  #     - f: a form containing
product, component, varsion and

Comment 4

15 years ago
I propose the following patch to the spellchecker:

Index: t/006spellcheck.t
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/t/006spellcheck.t,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.3 006spellcheck.t
--- t/006spellcheck.t	10 Jan 2003 23:51:38 -0000	1.3
+++ t/006spellcheck.t	3 Jul 2003 23:33:16 -0000
@@ -35,6 +35,11 @@
 paramater
 existance
 existant
+extention
+necces
+reciev
+seperate
+trafic
 );
 
 $testcount = scalar(@Support::Files::testitems) * scalar(@evilwords);

But in fact you may be interested in the following script:
http://fgouget.free.fr/typos/typos

I developed it independently to automate the search for typos in the Wine source
but it works very well on any kind of source: the WineHQ web site, the Linux
kernel, Bugzilla, etc. So I'll let you integrate it into 006spellcheck.t if you
are interested.

You can also find a patch fixing a bunch of spelling errors detected by my
script at the following URL:
http://fgouget.free.fr/tmp/bugzilla-20030703.diff
Please, have mercy, make it stop!

The current list already bloats the textual output of runtests.sh --verbose by 3
x the number of CGIs. Turning that into 8 x the number of CGIs would have the
sole effect of making me scroll three times as far to get past it before I got
to the output I wanted in my buffer.

The gain achieved by this test was marginal at best, even originally - and the
more words you add, the more inconvenient it becomes.

Gerv

Comment 6

15 years ago
I agree; the test either need to output only one line per .cgi or (my
preference) be eliminated. To keep adding words (w/each word being another run
through all .cgi's) is not ideal, IMHO.

The former could probably be accomplished using a method similar to what's in
http://fgouget.free.fr/typos/typos (mentioned in comment 4). The method for
accomplishing the later should be obvious.
(Reporter)

Comment 7

15 years ago
One line per CGI is fine, why does this need to be eliminated?  It performs a
function, and we have no reason to remove it.

The performance is fine, even on my old 533 box it runs quite speedily.  Running
over the same CGI before moving onto the next one would probably speed it up
even more, as might doing a |-separated regexp search if it became a problem.

Premature optimisation, people.
> It performs a function, and we have no reason to remove it.

Has it ever really caught a spelling mistake that you (or anyone else) were
about to check in?

(And would it be a big deal if it did?)

Gerv

Updated

15 years ago
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.18 → Bugzilla 2.20
This has been bugging me for a while.

Currently, if I runtests --verbose, I have to scroll back up an extra 394 lines
if the failure I want to see if before test 6. This is only going to get worse
if we add more words. (The fact that it also takes away five seconds of my life
whenever I run runtests is secondary.)

Can we please turn this test into a small shell script on mattyt's machine that
he runs manually every so often?

Gerv
or how about adding a --spelling flag to runtests.pl to include that test,
otherwise it's skipped?  Tinderbox could continue to run it of course.

The output is way too verbose.  We should have one test success for each file or
one test success for each word being tested for.  Not both.
We could have a flag - but I think it's a nice property of the tests that they
all the ones we have get run by default. (This leads to my conclusion that we
shouldn't have a test that no-one runs.)

Having it run by tinderbox but not by developers just means there's a small
chance of unspottable tree-breakage - in the unlikely event that someone does
make one of those five spelling mistakes.

Gerv
Bugzilla 2.20 feature set is now frozen as of 15 Sept 2004.  Anything flagged
enhancement that hasn't already landed is being pushed out.  If this bug is
otherwise ready to land, we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis, please set the
blocking2.20 flag to '?' if you think it qualifies.
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.20 → Bugzilla 2.22
(Assignee)

Comment 13

14 years ago
Created attachment 162822 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

Now after bug 257111, the issue of comment 5 seems to me to have gone away, so
I think we can do it.
(Assignee)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #162822 - Flags: review?

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #162822 - Flags: review? → review+

Updated

14 years ago
Assignee: timeless → wurblzap
Flags: approval?
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.22 → Bugzilla 2.20
(Assignee)

Updated

14 years ago
Whiteboard: patch awaiting approval
Flags: approval? → approval+
(Assignee)

Updated

14 years ago
Whiteboard: patch awaiting approval → patch awaiting checkin

Comment 14

14 years ago
Checking in defparams.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/defparams.pl,v  <--  defparams.pl
new revision: 1.145; previous revision: 1.144
done
Checking in Bugzilla/Config.pm;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/Bugzilla/Config.pm,v  <--  Config.pm
new revision: 1.31; previous revision: 1.30
done
Checking in Bugzilla/DB.pm;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/Bugzilla/DB.pm,v  <--  DB.pm
new revision: 1.17; previous revision: 1.16
done
Checking in t/006spellcheck.t;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/t/006spellcheck.t,v  <--  006spellcheck.t
new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4
done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Summary: Develop list of words for 006spellcheck.t to look for → Expand the list of words 006spellcheck.t look for; fix the places where they are wrong.
Whiteboard: patch awaiting checkin
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.