Spelling

[jsoref]

This PR corrects misspellings identified by the check-spelling action.

The misspellings have been reported at jsoref@70a7c49#commitcomment-65911822

The action reports that the changes in this PR would make it happy: jsoref@37f930d

Note: this PR does not include the action. If you're interested in running a spell check on every PR and push, that can be offered separately.

I intend to annotate this PR shortly. I'm happy to drop changes to files, drop specific terms, or split things as requested, although this may take some time.

[sridharb1]

Thank you, looks good

[jsoref]

The vast majority of the corrections were automatically suggested by Google Sheets (especially any preference for en-US over en-GB).

But all fault is mine.

[jsoref]

Normally my PRs only look at individual words, but I've been toying with this related task of identifying duplicated words. This repository was good input for my tool.

If feedback on this feature is negative, I may drop it going forward.

For simplicity, I've tagged these commits with the word that was duplicated, although, I might change my commit messages based on feedback.

[jsoref]

I didn't see any indication for this duplication...

[jsoref]

This file is renamed above.

[kmilos]

This is fine, but note this will lead to a completely new workflow created here (with the same name though), and the old runs will have to be deleted via the API.

[jsoref]

I'm happy to drop files/exclude paths, just let me know what should be skipped.

JavaScript is a brand... (catching this actually relied on the same extra tooling as catching duplicate words)

[jsoref]

My changes are for spelling (duplicate words are often detected by classic spell checkers) and don't cover grammar. In this case, even w/ this fix, the text doesn't make much sense.

[jsoref]

I had to look this one up...

[piponazo]

Thanks a lot for the contribution! It is really appreciated.

I would also love to see (probably in a separated PR) the inclusion on the action in the project. Most of the collaborators are non native English-speakers, and it will probably find us to help typos eventually.

I made few comments here and there about things we could drop.

[piponazo]

I think it is fine, since you also fixed the typo in the properties.cpp file.

[sridharb1]

Yes, Luis, I also thought about the focus used making sense, but I also thought that focused also makes sense, as in, if it is focused, then focus is used. On Thursday, February 3, 2022, 13:35, Luis Díaz Más ***@***.***> wrote: @piponazo requested changes on this pull request. Thanks a lot for the contribution! It is really appreciated. I would also love to see (probably in a separated PR) the inclusion on the action in the project. Most of the collaborators are non native English-speakers, and it will probably find us to help typos eventually. I made few comments here and there about things we could drop. In po/exiv2.pot:

-"References to resources that were incorporated, byinclusion or reference, "

+"References to resources that were incorporated, by inclusion or reference, " I think it is fine, since you also fixed the typo in the properties.cpp file. In src/crwimage_int.cpp:

- // Try the undecoded tag

+ // Try the raw tag Right ... I am not very sure about what would be the right word to use there. I would vote to drop this change. In src/nikonmn_int.cpp:

- unsigned focusused = (value.toLong(2) << 8) + value.toLong(3);

+ unsigned focussed = (value.toLong(2) << 8) + value.toLong(3); Hehe interesting ... I think this should be dropped because it problably means "FocusUsed". As you can see between lines 1721-1733, we are trying to determine if a focus point was used (and which one) or not. This correspond to AFPointsInFocus: https://www.exiftool.org/TagNames/Nikon.html#AFInfo In xmpsdk/include/TXMPUtils.hpp:

- tStringObj * catedStr );

+ tStringObj * concatenatedStr ); I would vote to drop all the changes done inside the xmpsdk folder. This is a 3rd party dependency in the project that was included in our codebase a long time ago, but we try to not touch these files too much. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS or Android. You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[clanmills]

@sridharb1 Thank You for saying "I would vote to drop all the changes done inside the xmpsdk folder. ". I agree and you've explained the reason.

@jsoref This is a really good contribution. I'm a native english speaker (Scottish) and I'm dyslexic (also Scottish!). So all the typos in README.md and elsewhere are mine. Thank You for working on this. I prefer en-US because it's more conventional for Open-Source. (I'm also a US Citizen).

When you've finished on this, I'd appreciate similar treatment being given to my book: https://github.com/Exiv2/team.exiv2.org

[kmilos]

This is fine, but note this will lead to a completely new workflow created here (with the same name though), and the old runs will have to be deleted via the API.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2067 (709082e) into main (55712d4) will decrease coverage by 55.76%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #2067       +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   61.48%   5.72%   -55.77%     
==========================================
  Files          96      96               
  Lines       19207   18955      -252     
  Branches     9843    9843               
==========================================
- Hits        11810    1085    -10725     
- Misses       5080   17682    +12602     
+ Partials     2317     188     -2129     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
include/exiv2/basicio.hpp	75.00% <ø> (-25.00%)	⬇️
include/exiv2/datasets.hpp	0.00% <ø> (-100.00%)	⬇️
include/exiv2/slice.hpp	90.67% <ø> (-0.85%)	⬇️
include/exiv2/tags.hpp	0.00% <ø> (-100.00%)	⬇️
include/exiv2/types.hpp	44.11% <ø> (-26.48%)	⬇️
include/exiv2/value.hpp	2.80% <ø> (-80.71%)	⬇️
src/actions.hpp	0.00% <ø> (-100.00%)	⬇️
src/basicio.cpp	16.25% <0.00%> (-33.51%)	⬇️
src/bmffimage.cpp	0.00% <ø> (-76.07%)	⬇️
src/canonmn_int.cpp	0.00% <ø> (-64.52%)	⬇️
... and 109 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 55712d4...709082e. Read the comment docs.