ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
apc
|
2021-07-23 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
calt
|
|
|
|
|
ccmp
|
Spec for Elevation QOL improvements (#8455)
### ⇒ [doc link](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/blob/dev/migrie/s/1032-elevation-qol/doc/specs/%235000%20-%20Process%20Model%202.0/%231032%20-%20Elevation%20Quality%20of%20Life%20Improvements.md) ⇐
## Summary of the Pull Request
Despite my best efforts to mix elevation levels in a single Terminal window, it seems that there's no way to do that safely. With the dream of mixed elevation dead, this spec outlines a number of quality-of-life improvements we can make to the Terminal today. These should make using the terminal in elevated scenarios better, since we can't have M/E.
### Abstract
> For a long time, we've been researching adding support to the Windows Terminal
> for running both unelevated and elevated (admin) tabs side-by-side, in the same
> window. However, after much research, we've determined that there isn't a safe
> way to do this without opening the Terminal up as a potential
> escalation-of-privilege vector.
>
> Instead, we'll be adding a number of features to the Terminal to improve the
> user experience of working in elevated scenarios. These improvements include:
>
> * A visible indicator that the Terminal window is elevated ([#1939])
> * Configuring the Terminal to always run elevated ([#632])
> * Configuring a specific profile to always open elevated ([#632])
> * Allowing new tabs, panes to be opened elevated directly from an unelevated
> window
> * Dynamic profile appearance that changes depending on if the Terminal is
> elevated or not. ([#1939], [#8311])
## PR Checklist
* [x] Specs: #1032, #632
* [x] References: #5000, #4472, #2227, #7240, #8135, #8311
* [x] I work here
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
_\*<sup>\*</sup><sub>\*</sub> read the spec <sub>\*</sub><sup>\*</sup>\*_
### Why are these two separate documents?
I felt that the spec that is currently in review in #7240 and this doc should remain separate, yet closely related documents. #7240 is more about showing how this large set of problems discussed in #5000 can all be solved technically, and how those solutions can be used together. It establishes that none of the proposed solutions for components of #5000 will preclude the possibility of other components being solved. What it does _not_ do however is drill too deeply on the user experience that will be built on top of those architectural changes.
This doc on the other hand focuses more closely on a pair of scenarios, and establishes how those scenarios will work technically, and how they'll be exposed to the user.
2021-08-25 19:42:55 +02:00
|
|
|
cybersecurity
|
2021-07-21 00:34:51 +02:00
|
|
|
Apc
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
clickable
|
2021-07-23 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
clig
|
2021-05-20 19:27:50 +02:00
|
|
|
copyable
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
dalet
|
|
|
|
|
dcs
|
2021-07-21 00:34:51 +02:00
|
|
|
Dcs
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
dialytika
|
|
|
|
|
dje
|
|
|
|
|
downside
|
|
|
|
|
downsides
|
|
|
|
|
dze
|
|
|
|
|
dzhe
|
|
|
|
|
Enum'd
|
Shift the island up by 1px when maximized (#10746)
For inexplicable reasons, the top row of pixels on our tabs, new tab
button, and caption buttons is totally unclickable. The mouse simply
refuses to interact with them. So when we're maximized, on certain
monitor configurations, this results in the top row of pixels not
reacting to clicks at all.
To obey Fitt's Law, we're gonna hackily shift the entire island up one
pixel. That will result in the top row of pixels in the window actually
being the _second_ row of pixels for those buttons, which will make them
clickable. It's perhaps not the right fix, but it works.
After discussion, we think this is a fine fix for this. We don't think
anyone's going to miss the top row of pixels on the TabView. The original
bug is painful enough for the subset of users it impacts that this is an
acceptable trade. Should a better fix be found, we can absolutely do that
instead.
Closes #7422
2021-07-29 00:15:22 +02:00
|
|
|
Fitt
|
2021-06-11 01:24:21 +02:00
|
|
|
formattings
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
ftp
|
2021-07-23 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
fvar
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
geeksforgeeks
|
|
|
|
|
ghe
|
|
|
|
|
gje
|
|
|
|
|
hostname
|
|
|
|
|
hostnames
|
|
|
|
|
hyperlink
|
|
|
|
|
hyperlinking
|
|
|
|
|
hyperlinks
|
|
|
|
|
img
|
|
|
|
|
It'd
|
|
|
|
|
kje
|
2021-07-09 23:01:04 +02:00
|
|
|
liga
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
lje
|
2021-07-23 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
locl
|
2021-08-19 22:47:07 +02:00
|
|
|
lorem
|
2021-09-16 22:44:29 +02:00
|
|
|
Llast
|
|
|
|
|
Lmid
|
|
|
|
|
Lorigin
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
maxed
|
2021-07-23 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
mkmk
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
mru
|
|
|
|
|
nje
|
|
|
|
|
ogonek
|
|
|
|
|
ok'd
|
|
|
|
|
overlined
|
|
|
|
|
postmodern
|
|
|
|
|
ptys
|
|
|
|
|
qof
|
2021-06-11 01:24:21 +02:00
|
|
|
qps
|
2021-07-23 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
rclt
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
reimplementation
|
|
|
|
|
reserialization
|
|
|
|
|
reserialize
|
|
|
|
|
reserializes
|
2021-07-23 01:15:44 +02:00
|
|
|
rlig
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
runtimes
|
|
|
|
|
shcha
|
2021-07-09 23:01:04 +02:00
|
|
|
slnt
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
Sos
|
|
|
|
|
timestamped
|
2021-07-13 18:21:44 +02:00
|
|
|
TLDR
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
tokenizes
|
|
|
|
|
tonos
|
|
|
|
|
tshe
|
2021-08-19 22:47:07 +02:00
|
|
|
uiatextrange
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
UIs
|
2021-06-11 01:24:21 +02:00
|
|
|
und
|
2021-07-21 00:34:51 +02:00
|
|
|
unregister
|
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035)
Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? -->
## Summary of the Pull Request
Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18)
<!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? -->
## References
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
* [ ] Closes #xxx
* [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA
* [ ] Tests added/passed
* [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx
* [ ] Schema updated.
* [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example).
With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.)
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
|
|
|
versioned
|
|
|
|
|
We'd
|
|
|
|
|
wildcards
|
|
|
|
|
yeru
|
|
|
|
|
zhe
|
