Skip to content

Conversation

@yarikoptic
Copy link

More about codespell: https://github.com/codespell-project/codespell .

I personally introduced it to dozens if not hundreds of projects already and so far only positive feedback.

CI workflow has 'permissions' set only to 'read' so also should be safe.

@lschr
Copy link
Collaborator

lschr commented Jul 31, 2025

Thanks a lot, this looks very interesting. I will have a look into it.

@lschr
Copy link
Collaborator

lschr commented Aug 1, 2025

Is there a reason to run codespell-problem-matcher explicitly? From my (limited) understanding it seems like it is integrated into actions-codespell anyhow.

…nteractively

=== Do not change lines below ===
{
 "chain": [],
 "cmd": "codespell -w -i 3 -C 4",
 "exit": 0,
 "extra_inputs": [],
 "inputs": [],
 "outputs": [],
 "pwd": "."
}
^^^ Do not change lines above ^^^
@yarikoptic yarikoptic marked this pull request as draft January 27, 2026 00:03
The actions-codespell@v2 action already includes the problem-matcher
functionality, so the explicit codespell-problem-matcher step is
redundant and can be removed.

This addresses the question from the maintainer about whether the
problem-matcher needs to be run explicitly.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

and experiment on con/duct#388 showed that
indeed not needed!
…os automagically

=== Do not change lines below ===
{
 "chain": [],
 "cmd": "codespell -w",
 "exit": 0,
 "extra_inputs": [],
 "inputs": [],
 "outputs": [],
 "pwd": "."
}
^^^ Do not change lines above ^^^
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants