docs: record the CC003 morphology change, and correct what CC003 claims - #13
Conversation
The rules page told readers that CC003's decision lives in imperatives.py. That stopped being true in commit-check#540: the rule reads the first word's form, and the word list is now only a stem oracle for the -s case. Replace that line with what the rule does and does not do, including the gerund-noun limit it cannot see past. The changelog entry is filed as unreleased because the version comes from the git tag; it wants v2.14.0, since nothing that passed before fails now.
✅ Deploy Preview for commit-check ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 51 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe documentation adds the unreleased v2.14.0 changelog entry and updates CC003 guidance to describe morphology-based validation, accepted forms, and known false positives. ChangesCC003 documentation
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/rules.md`:
- Around line 224-226: Update the explanatory sentence in the CC003
documentation to distinguish grammatical classification from actual part of
speech: replace the claim that “spelling” is a gerund in either usage with
wording that says it is classified as a gerund in both uses.
- Around line 216-222: Update the remaining configuration reference in
docs/configuration.md by removing the link or direction to imperatives.py and
replacing it with a description of the rule’s morphology-based behavior: it
evaluates the first word’s form, accepting anything that is not past tense, a
gerund, or third-person singular, including unknown verbs and noun-led subjects.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 2a3f92ab-3de2-47c9-a77e-bf5f0370521b
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/changelog.mddocs/rules.md
configuration.md sent readers to imperatives.py from the option table, the same defect I fixed on the rules page and missed here. Nothing on the site points at that file now. Also: 'spelling' in 'spelling in the docs' is a noun, not a gerund. The rule cannot tell because it reads the ending. Say that instead of miscalling the part of speech.
|
#14 fixes it and is green there, including Everything else on this PR is passing, and both CodeRabbit findings are addressed in dbd798c. Generated by Claude Code |
2 participants
Follows commit-check#540, which closed commit-check#526.
rules.md— CC003 said something that is no longer trueThe section ended with:
That line was pointing readers at the thing that no longer decides anything, and inviting them to treat a rejection as a missing entry — which was the whole complaint in #526. It is replaced with a What it does not do block covering the two behaviours a user will actually run into:
fix: parser improvements) passes because a noun phrase has no mood to get wrong;fix: spelling in the docsis still reported. Stated plainly rather than left to be discovered.The What it does paragraph needed no change — it already described the new behaviour ("
fix, notfixed,fixes, orfixing"). The docs had been right about this all along; the implementation was what didn't match.changelog.md— a v2.14.0 entryFiled under Changed, with the measurement (45.5% → 0.97% of
git.git's 59,140 subjects), the two classes of subject that newly pass, and the point most worth carrying to users:IMPERATIVESno longer needs additions, so nobody should send a patch adding the verb they just used. Plus a row in the Highlights table.Two things to decide before merging
The version is
(unreleased).pyproject.tomlusesdynamic = ["version"]with setuptools_scm, so the number comes from the git tag — there is no file to bump. The date needs filling in when the tag is cut. 2.14.0 rather than 2.13.5 because behaviour changed, and not 3.0.0 because it only loosens: every subject that passed before still passes, so no one's build breaks on upgrade.The changelog has a gap this PR does not fill. v2.13.2, v2.13.3 and v2.13.4 are released but undocumented here — including commit-check#537, which made a skipped check report as skipped instead of as passed. That one changes what CI shows people, so it probably belongs on this page. I left it out because backfilling three releases is a bigger judgement call than the entry you asked for; happy to write them if you want.
Verification
SOCIAL_CARDS=false mkdocs build --strictis clean — strict mode fails on broken internal links, so the new#v2140anchor and therules.md#cc003cross-link are both resolved. (The social-cards plugin is off only because it fetches Google Fonts, which this sandbox's proxy blocks;netlify.tomlalready disables it for previews.)🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01U9zFxq8V4qxG4aMzJhGBFn
Generated by Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit