chore: fix a large number of spelling issues in comments

chia/_tests/core/full_node/test_full_node.py

@@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ async def test_new_unfinished_block(
         assert res is not None
         assert res is not None and res.data == bytes(fnp.RequestUnfinishedBlock(unf.partial_hash))
 
-    # when we receive a new unfinished block, we advertize it to our peers.
+    # when we receive a new unfinished block, we advertise it to our peers.
     # We send new_unfinished_blocks to old peers (0.0.35 and earlier) and we
     # send new_unfinishe_blocks2 to new peers (0.0.6 and later). Test both
     peer.protocol_version = Version(peer_version)

chia/_tests/core/util/test_config.py

@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ def test_multiple_writers(self, root_path_populated_with_config, default_config_
         Test whether multiple readers/writers encounter data corruption. When using non-atomic operations
         to write to the config, partial/incomplete writes can cause readers to yield bad/corrupt data.
         """
-        # Artifically inflate the size of the default config. This is done to (hopefully) force
+        # Artificially inflate the size of the default config. This is done to (hopefully) force
         # save_config() to require multiple writes. When save_config() was using shutil.move()
         # multiple writes were observed, leading to read failures when data was partially written.
         default_config_dict["xyz"] = "x" * 32768

chia/_tests/wallet/cat_wallet/test_trades.py

@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ async def test_cat_trades(
 
     trusted = len(wallet_node_maker.config["trusted_peers"]) > 0
 
-    # Because making/taking CR-CATs is asymetrical, approving the hacked together aggregation test will fail
+    # Because making/taking CR-CATs is asymmetrical, approving the hacked together aggregation test will fail
     # The taker is "making" offers that it is approving with a VC which multiple actual makers would never do
     # This is really a test of CATOuterPuzzle anyways and is not correlated with any of our params
     test_aggregation = not credential_restricted and not wallet_environments.tx_config.reuse_puzhash and trusted
@@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ async def test_cat_trades(
                         "pending_coin_removal_count": 1,
                         "<=#spendable_balance": -2,
                         "<=#max_send_amount": -2,
-                        # Unconfirmed balance doesn't change because receiveing 1 XCH and spending 1 in fee
+                        # Unconfirmed balance doesn't change because receiving 1 XCH and spending 1 in fee
                         "unconfirmed_wallet_balance": 0,
                         ">=#pending_change": 1,  # any amount increase
                     },
@@ -586,7 +586,7 @@ async def test_cat_trades(
                         "unspent_coin_count": 1,
                         ">#spendable_balance": 0,
                         ">#max_send_amount": 0,
-                        # Confirmed balance doesn't change because receiveing 1 XCH and spending 1 in fee
+                        # Confirmed balance doesn't change because receiving 1 XCH and spending 1 in fee
                         "confirmed_wallet_balance": 0,
                         "<=#pending_change": 1,  # any amount decrease
                     },

chia/_tests/wallet/test_coin_management.py

@@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ def test_list_parsing(id: ValueAndArgs, show_unconfirmed: ValueAndArgs, paginate
         {
             "num_environments": 1,
             "blocks_needed": [3],  # 6 coins to test pagination
-            "reuse_puzhash": True,  # irrelevent
-            "trusted": True,  # irrelevent
+            "reuse_puzhash": True,  # irrelevant
+            "trusted": True,  # irrelevant
         }
     ],
     indirect=True,

chia/_tests/wallet/test_wallet_node.py

@@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ async def test_transaction_send_cache(
 ) -> None:
     """
     The purpose of this test is to test that calling _resend_queue on the wallet node does not result in resending a
-    spend to a peer that has already recieved that spend and is currently processing it. It also tests that once we
+    spend to a peer that has already received that spend and is currently processing it. It also tests that once we
     have heard that the peer is done processing the spend, we _do_ properly resend it.
     """
     [full_node_api], [(wallet_node, wallet_server)], _ = simulator_and_wallet
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ def logged_spends_len() -> int:
         with pytest.raises(AssertionError):
             await time_out_assert(5, logged_spends_len, 2)
 
-        # Tell the wallet that we recieved the spend (but failed to process it so it should send again)
+        # Tell the wallet that we received the spend (but failed to process it so it should send again)
         msg = make_msg(
             ProtocolMessageTypes.transaction_ack,
             wallet_protocol.TransactionAck(

chia/wallet/conditions.py

@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ def from_mode_and_maybe_args(
         amount_committed: Optional[uint64] = None
         # This loop probably looks a little strange
         # It's trying to account for the fact that the arguments may be any 1 or 2 of these arguments in this order
-        # Not sure of a more elgant way to do it
+        # Not sure of a more elegant way to do it
         original_mode = mode
         for arg in args:
             if mode & 0b100: