On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:03:39 GMT, Daniel Fuchs <dfu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I ran `codespell` on modules owned by the serviceability team >> (`java.instrument java.management.rmi java.management jdk.attach >> jdk.hotspot.agent jdk.internal.jvmstat jdk.jcmd jdk.jconsole jdk.jdi >> jdk.jdwp.agent jdk.jstatd jdk.management.agent jdk.management`), and >> accepted those changes where it indeed discovered real typos. >> >> >> I will update copyright years using a script before pushing (otherwise like >> every second change would be a copyright update, making reviewing much >> harder). >> >> The long term goal here is to make tooling support for running `codespell`. >> The trouble with automating this is of course all false positives. But >> before even trying to solve that issue, all true positives must be fixed. >> Hence this PR. > > LGTM. I spotted one fix in a exception message. I don't expect that there > will be tests depending on that, but it might still be a good idea to run the > serviceability tests to double check. Although I guess the test would have > had the same typo and would have been fixed too were it the case :-) @dfuch I have only updated files in `src`, so if the incorrect spelling is tested, that test will now fail. I'm unfortunately not well versed in what tests cover serviceability code. Can you suggest a suitable set of tests to run? And yes, ideally the tests should be spell checked as well. It's just that: 1) the product source is (imho) more important to begin with, 2) test comments are generally of a lower quality and more likely to contain more typos (imho), meaning even more work for me to publish a PR i believe is correct, and 3) the tests in the JDK are so intertwined and messy that I'm having a hard time understanding what groups to post reviews to. I could make one mega-PR touching the entire test code base, but I doubt it would be very popular. :-) ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8334
