🔥 remove spelling workflow/action

[ctcpip]

#201 (comment)

[jsoref]

Is there any feedback you have about the experience?

[ctcpip]

spell checkers are great extensions to use on one's editor locally, but not something good to have as a status check on repositories

[jsoref]

ok, thanks for trying it. I appreciate it.

[ctcpip]

to elaborate:

• most spelling problems found are false positives
• nobody wants to see a red ❌ on a commit, especially for a spelling problem, and moreso when it's a false positive
• it is burdensome to constantly be updating configuration files / dictionaries
• doing the above increases surface area for false negatives

it would be more tolerable if it wasn't a status check, and instead did something like add a comment on the pull request that points out the spelling issues and line numbers (on newly added content only). these comments could be addressed, or ignored if false positives, and it avoids most of the problematic issues with having it be a status check.

[jsoref]

• It's possible to configure it as a comment on PRs (although that means it needs pull-requests: write, and some people don't like that)
• It's possible to have it not yield a ❌ -- quit_without_error: true
• only checking the changes for the PR, is also possible: only_check_changed_files: true although it is scoped to the file, as opposed to the patch hunks

Would you like to try that configuration?

[hythloda]

Nice change!

[jsoref]

Here's a demo check-spelling-sandbox#3 (comment) of a configuration check-spelling-sandbox@ea13b38 as described in #201 (comment)

There are typos included in the PR base check-spelling-sandbox@b8154f4, but they aren't reported in the PR.

If that's good enough, I can make a PR for it.

(Note that check-spelling doesn't have the ability to check the just the hunks that are added, although as it seems there's interest, I might prioritize that for the release after the one I'm about to ship.)

[lehors]

I'm closing this for now while we try PR #203 which seems to address the main issue. We can reopen it later on if the experiment doesn't work.

[lehors]

Having tested this for quite a while now it's become clear that while this checker catches a few typos here and there the number of false positive is so high that it is primarily a nuisance. It seems time to take it off this repo.

[lehors]

Let's do it.

[bobcallaway]

Looks gewd to me

[mlieberman85]

Lgtm