CI,STYLE: narrow down ignore-words-list of codespell

[chinggg]

• xref CI,STYLE: GH38802 narrow down list of ignored words #38820
• tests added / passed
• passes black pandas
• passes git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff
• whatsnew entry
  see Issue CI/STYLE extend codespell beyond pandas/core #38802, task4

[MarcoGorelli]

Looks good to me, thanks @chinggg !

[jorisvandenbossche]

I am personally -1 on using the codespellignorelines like this. IMO that will become too complex. A code check is nice, but should not become too convoluted or get in the way (eg now if someone changes one of those lines slightly, you get linting errors and need to update codespellignorelines as well)

[jorisvandenbossche]

The strings on this line are simply valid arguments in pandas for frequencies. So they can also appear elsewhere, IMO just ignoring this line is too brittle, and I would personally leave this as a global ignored word.

[MarcoGorelli]

That's a good point, thanks @jorisvandenbossche

So, do you suggest to keep this PR's renaming of datas -> data, but put fo and ba back into ignore-words-list, remove .codespellignorelines, and remove the exclude-file option in setup.cfg?

[chinggg]

@MarcoGorelli I agree with @jorisvandenbossche to remove the .codespellignorelines file and bring ba and fo back into the ignore-words-list. Otherwise it may be convoluted and brittle as @jorisvandenbossche pointed out.

[MarcoGorelli]

Thanks @chinggg for updating! It's showing 101 files changed though, something may have gone wrong while merging - could you try again please?

[chinggg]

@MarcoGorelli I fetch from upstream/master before I commit my modification, so the commits others have done are merged. Do I need to fetch from the upstream before I commit or the PR system will deal with the my version which have fallen behind the upstream to be merged correctly?

[MarcoGorelli]

@chinggg it's fine to fetch before adding new commits, but that shouldn't show so many changed files - without seeing the exact commands you ran, it's hard to guess what may have gone wrong

I think now I'd suggest

git rebase upstream/master
git push -f

, when trying that locally from your branch it works fine

[MarcoGorelli]

This looks better, thanks @chinggg !

@jorisvandenbossche further comments?

[jreback]

is it possible to just ignore pandas/core/strings/accessor.py instead / in-addition to?

[MarcoGorelli]

as in, ignore the whole file? Yes, that's easily done with

exclude: ^pandas/core/strings/accessor\.py$

in .pre-commit-config.yaml, it's just not clear to me why that would be preferrable

[jreback]

to avoid the fragility of 'fo'

[MarcoGorelli]

@jreback an alternative would be to change the example to use 'nox' instead of 'fox' - which isn't a real animal, but at least then no is a real word and we avoid having to ignore an entire file, does that seem OK?

[jreback]

i would rather just ignore that example if we can. it IS pretty fragile. its not likely to change much in the future though, so i suppose if you can't ignore that line then just changing the example is prob ok.

[MarcoGorelli]

OK if we use dog then there's no failures and we can use a real animal 🎉

The original PR changed the example actually, before I asked them to change (sorry @chinggg !) so I've added a commit for them - look good now?

[chinggg]

Yeah! Thanks @MarcoGorelli , it looks good to me.

[jreback]

thanks @chinggg