Force Spelling Errors

[LeStarch]

@jsoref is there a way to force your spelling action to always flag a token as misspelled? Specifically m_data is used often, but breaks builds against certain embedded OSes. We don't have the licensing to build/ci these OSes but forcing the user to use another token would reduce the disruptions by about 90%.

Is this possible given your spelling action or am I looking at writing a specific action to target m_data usage?

[LeStarch]

Now that I think through this more, how would a contributor ever know this was the rationale and thus a needed fix? This is an easy, but not effective solution. Will consider a tailored action with specific messaging to let contributors know not to use m_data.

[jsoref]

Technically you could do a pattern something like (?<=m_)d(?=ata) that would cause the spell checker to lop off the d and then complain about ata.

But, indeed, I wouldn't recommend doing it -- because as you note, no one would be able to understand why the spell checker is complaining about ata.

[jsoref]

I've added a feature note to myself for implementing something like this: https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Feature:-Reject-patterns

I don't expect to get to it in the near future. I have a number of other tasks I want to work on first.

[jsoref]

In case anyone runs into this discussion, this feature was released in v0.0.20 as 🚫 Forbidden patterns, and apparently the specific vendor was VxWorks.

(I'm adding this comment now because i'm playing "connect the dots" -- people asked where the m_data ban came from...)

On the point of "how would the user know", that's actually a good point that my initial implementation didn't really handle, but a later feature (suggested patterns) does. Specifically, suggested patterns spits out the commented lines preceding a pattern when it suggests a pattern. I should see about having forbidden patterns do the same.