Details
-
Bug
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Minor
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
The FOSS server fossies.org offers among others a feature named "Source code misspelling reports". Such reports are normally only generated on request, but as Fossies administrator I have just set up for testing purposes such a "codespell" based analysis for the "logback" GitHub "master" version:
https://fossies.org/linux/test/logback-master.tar.gz/codespell.html
That version-independent URL should redirect always to the report for the latest "master" version identified by the short GitHub commit ID and a year-month-day string (YYMMDD) representing the according git pull date (mostly = commit date). The data are residing within a special restricted "test" folder that isn't really integrated into the standard Fossies services and should also not be accessible to search engines. The report should be available at least for some weeks and is continuously updated (currently even with a half-hourly refresh rate, later probably less often).
By the way, the context type of the spelling errors and typos are marked by a single character (within the sortable column "T"): The less interesting, probably not user visible ones (in "comments") are greyed, while the probably more interesting ones are black-colored. Especially interesting may be unassigned errors marked by a "?" since they may be contained in the source code itself (I was unsure about "successul" and "treshhold"). Some more according information is offered by a tooltip if the mouse is over the string "error context type character" above the table, over the "T" in the table header or over such a context character itself within the table. If JavaScript is enabled all table columns are sortable.
Although after a first review some obviously wrong matches ("False Positives" = FPs) are already filtered out please inform me if you find more of them so that I can exclude them if applicable.
OK, spelling corrections certainly have a low priority, but they may also contribute to the overall quality of a software project. So I hope that the report can nevertheless be a little bit useful.
The FOSS server fossies.org offers among others a feature named " Source code misspelling reports ". Such reports are normally only generated on request, but as Fossies administrator I have just set up for testing purposes such a " codespell " based analysis for the "logback" GitHub "master" version: https://fossies.org/linux/test/logback-master.tar.gz/codespell.html That version-independent URL should redirect always to the report for the latest "master" version identified by the short GitHub commit ID and a year-month-day string (YYMMDD) representing the according git pull date (mostly = commit date). The data are residing within a special restricted "test" folder that isn't really integrated into the standard Fossies services and should also not be accessible to search engines. The report should be available at least for some weeks and is continuously updated (currently even with a half-hourly refresh rate, later probably less often). By the way, the context type of the spelling errors and typos are marked by a single character (within the sortable column "T"): The less interesting, probably not user visible ones (in "comments") are greyed, while the probably more interesting ones are black-colored. Especially interesting may be unassigned errors marked by a "?" since they may be contained in the source code itself (I was unsure about "successul" and "treshhold"). Some more according information is offered by a tooltip if the mouse is over the string "error context type character" above the table, over the "T" in the table header or over such a context character itself within the table. If JavaScript is enabled all table columns are sortable. Although after a first review some obviously wrong matches ("False Positives" = FPs) are already filtered out please inform me if you find more of them so that I can exclude them if applicable. OK, spelling corrections certainly have a low priority, but they may also contribute to the overall quality of a software project. So I hope that the report can nevertheless be a little bit useful.
Description
The FOSS server fossies.org offers among others a feature named "Source code misspelling reports". Such reports are normally only generated on request, but as Fossies administrator I have just set up for testing purposes such a "codespell" based analysis for the "logback" GitHub "master" version:
https://fossies.org/linux/test/logback-master.tar.gz/codespell.html
That version-independent URL should redirect always to the report for the latest "master" version identified by the short GitHub commit ID and a year-month-day string (YYMMDD) representing the according git pull date (mostly = commit date). The data are residing within a special restricted "test" folder that isn't really integrated into the standard Fossies services and should also not be accessible to search engines. The report should be available at least for some weeks and is continuously updated (currently even with a half-hourly refresh rate, later probably less often).
By the way, the context type of the spelling errors and typos are marked by a single character (within the sortable column "T"): The less interesting, probably not user visible ones (in "comments") are greyed, while the probably more interesting ones are black-colored. Especially interesting may be unassigned errors marked by a "?" since they may be contained in the source code itself (I was unsure about "successul" and "treshhold"). Some more according information is offered by a tooltip if the mouse is over the string "error context type character" above the table, over the "T" in the table header or over such a context character itself within the table. If JavaScript is enabled all table columns are sortable.
Although after a first review some obviously wrong matches ("False Positives" = FPs) are already filtered out please inform me if you find more of them so that I can exclude them if applicable.
OK, spelling corrections certainly have a low priority, but they may also contribute to the overall quality of a software project. So I hope that the report can nevertheless be a little bit useful.