-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 568
fix(spellcheck): some chatters and emotes not ignored #6780
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
093aa99
proof of concept
4rneee 8752091
changelog and formatting
4rneee f6fe1d4
variable names
4rneee 573a745
remove debug prints
4rneee 31534d5
always use globalMatchView
4rneee c17eb11
change wordRegex and double check chatters and emotes
4rneee 87c46cb
Merge branch 'master' into fix/spellcheck
4rneee e02ad24
Merge branch 'master' into fix/spellcheck
4rneee e81d9b8
update testcases
4rneee ad1da4c
dont't check if token is chatter and remove @chatter handling
4rneee 03291eb
add testcase for links
4rneee 15a396e
add comment for dash testcase
4rneee File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems incorrect, if you can try to fix this in this PR that would be nice
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I change the regex to
(?<=^|(?!_|\p{Pd})\p{P}|\p{Pd}\p{Pd})\p{Pd}?((?:\p{L}\p{Pd}?)*\p{L})\p{Pd}?(?=$|(?!_|\p{Pd})\p{P}|\p{Pd}\p{Pd})(https://regex101.com/r/OK1L36/3) this would work but is pretty unreadable.A patch with this regex would be:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we need to be this complex, it's probably better to write a manual loop similar to what Firefox does in the referenced function (in hopes that's more readable).
imo, doesn't have to be in this PR: We can keep the current state, make sure that it's properly tested, and then replace it with a manual loop.