Repository navigation
Allow the afe commit hash fragment in the typos check - #7979
kamilikamil wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
typos splits commit hash 0da993a in SECURITY_CONTEXT.md at its digits and flags 'afe', failing Spell Check on dev and on every pull request.
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review.
|
| Layer / File(s) | Summary |
|---|---|
Allow commit-hash fragment _typos.toml |
The default allowed words include afe, with a comment identifying it as a commit-hash fragment. |
Priority:
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes
Change: Bug fix · Severity of issue fixed: Medium
Possibly related PRs
- projectdiscovery/nuclei#7972: Both PRs address spelling-check failures from
SECURITY_CONTEXT.md; that PR excludes the file, while this one allows the specific hash fragment.
Suggested labels: Type: Maintenance
Suggested reviewers: mzack9999
Merge Risk: 
Minimal · up to fc1e2
-
No actionable merge-blocking risk is evident; the targeted spelling workflow fix is ready for normal checks.
Pre-merge checks: 
5
-
Full details: Title check
-
Explanation
The title states the main change: adding
afeto the typos check allowlist so the commit hash fragment in SECURITY_CONTEXT.md is no longer flagged. The raw summary confirms the only change is a two-line addition to _typos.toml, and the objectives describe the same fix for the failing Spell Check on dev. The title is specific, short, and accurate.
Full details: Linked Issues check
-
Explanation
Issue
#7978requires the Spell Check workflow to pass whentyposreports theafefragment in commit hash0da993afe6fromSECURITY_CONTEXT.md. The pull request addsafe = "afe"to_typos.tomland documents the affected hash fragment. This directly addresses the reported spelling error.
Full details: Out of Scope Changes check
-
Explanation
The reviewed change only updates
_typos.tomlwith the requiredafespelling exception and its comment. The change supports issue#7978and introduces no unrelated implementation or documentation changes.
Full details: Docstring Coverage
-
Explanation
No eligible functions found in the changed files. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff with cyclomatic complexity of at least 2. Documentation-only edits and deletions within surviving functions are included; unchanged diff context and fully deleted functions are excluded. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.)
-
Finishing Touches
-
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
-
- Create a new PR
-
- Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts
A rabbit checks each word with care,
Then finds afe hiding there.
The hash stays whole, the check moves on,
A spelling snag is neatly gone.
I hop away beneath the moon.
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
Proposed changes
Fixes #7978
Spell Check fails on
devwith fiveerror: `afe` should be `safe`. All five are the commit hash0da993afe6inSECURITY_CONTEXT.md, which typos splits at its digits. This allowsafein_typos.toml, next to the other hash and encoded-data fragments already listed there.Proof
Spell Check fails on
devand passes on this branch.I used an AI assistant while working on this.
Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit