The phrase "its own" contains a possessive determiners "its" that is never a contraction of "it is". Therefore the spelling "it's own" is always incorrect but it is present in several comments in core.
However, since both "its" and "it's" are words, the spellchecker meta wouldn't find this.
Fix spelling of this particular phrase in all occurrences in core.
This does not involve any change to real code, so no tests are required for this patch.
Commit the patch; it applies and has been marked as RTBC. We will not be looking at other cases of "it's" or any of the other contractions.
None.
None.
None.
block.css has the possessive "its" spelled incorrectly in the comment.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #9 | correct_its_own_issues-2829484-9.patch | 2.42 KB | vegantriathlete |
Comments
Comment #2
vegantriathletePatch attached!
Comment #4
vegantriathleteSeriously? It failed testing? I've removed one apostrophe from a comment. I'm setting back to needs review. If it fails again can somebody else fix whatever is going on with the testbot or just simply set this to RTBC?
Comment #5
cilefen commentedComment #6
xjmNice catch!
@cilefen asked about the scoping for this issue. If it were a normal spelling error, there's a meta for that. However, since both "its" and "it's" are words, the spellchecker meta wouldn't find this. And obviously we can't and shouldn't spend time checking every "it's" in core. (Though, OTOH, we do generally avoid contractions in codebase docs, like Data. But there are hundreds of examples where we don't, either, so let's not go there.) ;)
However, the expression "it's own" is never right ("it is own" is a nonsensical phrase). So I did this:
Let's fix all those comments?
Thanks!
Comment #7
vegantriathlete@xjm I'm happy to do the fix and roll a patch. Please just clarify for me what I'm aiming to do. The original issue was specifically about correcting it's -> its in this one file. You are requesting a fix for it's own -> its own. Are you suggesting that I have just one patch to correct the whole lot?
Edit: Ah, now I see. Even the original issue had its own problem with the "it's own" issue (see what I did there? ;-) ) I can proceed without further input and will get a patch rolled shortly.
Comment #8
vegantriathleteJust assigning this to myself. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Comment #9
vegantriathleteI have not bothered to roll an interdiff; I hope I don't get any demerits 8-0
Comment #10
vegantriathlete@xjm: you said not to go there, but I did anyway. When I
grep -r "it's"I get 412 results. It wouldn't take me too long to just change all of those to the proper version of it is / its. Do you want me to create another issue and roll a patch to do that? Then the next logical question would be whether I should grep on other contractions like "'t" (or maybe "n't"), "'m", "'ll", "'d", "'ve" and "'re" to get them removed. [Note to self: Remember that "'s" is a possessive and not a contraction; don't (or should I say do not) bother searching on that one. Oh except for contractions like "he's", "she's", "that's", "what's", "who's", "where's", "when's", "why's"]Comment #11
vegantriathlete"at's" -> 131 lines
"'d"-> 20289 lines {way too many false positives; need to refine the pattern}"e's" -> 938 lines
"he's" -> 6 lines {I guess I already got all those with the previous search, though}
"'ll" -> 228 lines
"'m"-> 12523 lines {way too many false positives; need to refine the pattern}"n's" -> 181 lines
"n't" -> 1964 lines
"o's" -> 8 lines
"'re"-> 4884 lines {way too many false positives; need to refine the pattern}"'ve"-> 2118 lines {way too many false positives; need to refine the pattern}"y's" -> 235 lines
"d've" -> 1 line
"e'd" -> 19 lines
"I'd" -> 2 lines
"I'm" -> 7 lines
"I've" -> 0 lines
"o'd" -> 1 line
"o're" -> 0 lines
"t'd" -> 6 lines
"u'd" -> 7 lines
"w's" -> 84 lines
"y'd" -> 3 lines
"y're" -> 46 lines
Comment #12
vegantriathleteHello, is anybody there?
Comment #13
vegantriathleteping?
Comment #14
chi commented@vegantriathlete we have huge troubles in reviewing issues because not many people take interest in this. You can try to reach out to @xjm though IRC to bring this issue to her attention. Otherwise just give this up.
Comment #15
vegantriathleteComment #16
20th commentedI don't see any problems with this patch.
It applies without problems and no amount of 'git grep'ping shows any other invalid usages of "it's own". This patch involves no real code changes, so no tests are required.
Updating issue summary to have a better description and changing status to RTBC.
Comment #17
vegantriathleteComment #19
20th commentedOK, random "CI Error" failure. Restoring RTBC status.
Comment #22
xjm@vegantriathlete, to get my attention on an issue that is not marked RTBC, please assign it to me and ping like Chi said. Unfortunately since I comment on hundreds of issues in a given month I can't track replies on those that aren't RTBC. Thanks!
To answer the question, I think we should include that additional research in the scope of an issue related to #2622992: Run a spellchecker against core and fix all the errors in comments. I agree that the scope of this patch is alright since a simple spellcheck won't catch it and I've confirmed the remaining uses were resolved. Committed and pushed to 8.3.x and 8.2.x. Thanks everyone!
Comment #23
xjmComment #24
chi commented@xjm, I think assigning issues to others requires some special permissions on drupal.org.
Comment #25
vegantriathlete@xjm: Thanks for the information about getting your attention. As it turns out, I think it was actually for the better that I did NOT get your attention and instead took advantage of Core Mentoring hours to hook @20th into the process. (Thanks to @cilefen for the suggestion to use Core Mentoring hours!)
I gather that your answer is to my question in #10. However, I'm still not sure exactly what you want me to do.
Are you asking me to create a new issue? Are you asking me to update #2622992: Run a spellchecker against core and fix all the errors in comments?
@timplunkett indicated in IRC yesterday that dealing with the other contractions would be a "won't fix." So, I think I should forget about the research I did in #11.
Comment #26
xjm@vegantriathlete, I think a followup to check all the "it's" in core is fine. And yeah, we don't need to spend time removing contractions just for the sake of removing them, so long as they're grammatically correct. :) Sorry for the confusion!
Comment #27
lomo commented@vegantriathlete @xjm While I personally hate seeing "it's" used incorrectly, I would have to say that lengthy discussions of issues like this (and any follow-up) are mainly needless bikeshedding. That said, if searching instances of "it's" for correctness, please also keep in mind that "it's" is not only a contraction of "it is", but also "it has" (i.e. present perfect), e.g.:
(It is)
(It has)
And note that the following word (for an "it has" meaning) is not always "been". It could also be "got/gotten". e.g.
... and than an adverb, e.g. "never", "always", "only", "sometimes", "frequently", etc, might come in between.
I just wanted to point that out in case someone is doing quick global search/replace or filtering with the concept of "if "it's" ≠ "it is", change to "its"... or whatever.
I do agree that the UI of software developed by a group of really smart people shouldn't have too many basic grammatical errors. ;-) (And when I see lots of errors like that in the front-end of a product, or in the official website or docs supporting it, I think I subconsciously wonder if that reflects similar sloppiness in the code base. And I suspect the same is true for many others. (So I don't mean to denigrate this issue and/or those who contributed to it with the term, "bikeshedding" — that was only meant as self-deprecating humor related to my own comment here. ;-) )