Fix spelling in Operator docs and related protos #46876
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
Related to #46191 Help us move to a new, more scalable spell checker based on vale by supporting spell checking in the Operator resource reference. While vale cannot ignore specific files (unless we run the CLI on all _but_ those files), it is possible to fine-tune a vale spell-check rule so we can check the Operator resource reference docs: - Fix specific spelling errors in some of our proto files. - Use "Boolean" instead of "boolean" in Operator resource reference docs by substituting the incorrect spelling in the docs generator. - Wrap field type names and headings in backticks to avoid the vale spell checker. The vale spell checker ignores all content in backticks.
ptgott
added
no-changelog
github-actions
bot
requested review from
bernardjkim,
hugoShaka,
marcoandredinis,
mmcallister,
r0mant,
tigrato,
xinding33 and
zmb3
|
🤖 Vercel preview here: https://docs-d91t7jxg1-goteleport.vercel.app/docs/ver/preview |
|
I think you'll need to re-render the TF resources and docs as well with |
bernardjkim
reviewed
Sep 30, 2024
| @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ message AccessListOwner { | |||
| // owner. | |||
| string description = 2; | |||
|
|
|||
| // ineligible_status describes if this owner is eligible or not | |||
| // and if not, describes how they're lacking eligibility. | |||
| // describes if this owner is eligible or not and if not, describes how | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| // describes if this owner is eligible or not and if not, describes how | |
| // `ineligible_status` describes if this owner is eligible or not and if not, describes how |
It looks like we're removing the field name in some of these changes. Is this intentional?
|
This PR has been sitting around for a while, so I am going to close it in favor of ignoring the Vale spellchecker in our auto-generated references to avoid making the first iteration of this project too large. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Related to #46191
Help us move to a new, more scalable spell checker based on vale by supporting spell checking in the Operator resource reference. While vale cannot ignore specific files (unless we run the CLI on all but those files), it is possible to fine-tune a vale spell-check rule so we can check the Operator resource reference docs: