Exclude specific line

[jakobod]

Workaround: use extend-ignore-re to create your own file-level, line-trailing, or line-leading ignores (examples)

---

Hi!

I'm wondering why there is no directive that can be used to ignore a specific line? I have some files that have intentional typos in them that should be ignored, while the rest of the file should still be checked!
I'm thinking of a solution like clang-formats:

// clang-format off
...
// clang-format on

Did I not find that feature or has it been left out intentionally?

greetings!

[epage]

Just hasn't been implemented left.

Different approaches

• File-level exclude
  • Already supported, does block spell checking the file name
  • Would be better with layered config, see Layered config #193
• File-wide ignore directive
• Line-trailing ignore directive
• Ignore block directives, like mentioned above
• External ignore directives
  • Looks like codespell uses this, seems like it'd be hard to maintain

Considerations for inline directives

• Comment styles are language-specific
• For global and trailing directives, we need to scan ahead

[davidsneighbour]

How about an ignore system the way tools like stylelint implements it:

• ignore following line
• ignore on and ignore off for blocks (multiple lines) of code

Sometimes there is an requirement of having "wrong" code and adding all these items (see #544) to the ignore list might lead to missed fixes down the road.

[Blacksmoke16]

Following up on #613 (comment), my main use case is wanting to allow a specific word as allowed, while not preventing it from being flagged elsewhere.

Inline comment would be the most focused. From an implementation perspective, different comment syntax between languages shouldn't really matter if you just look for some unique string exists in a given line. That way each lang can start the comment with whatever syntax they use. Granted this would be harder if parsing is done token by token, not line by line however.

The start/end directive, or even as mentioned later a "ignore next line" could also work well, allowing the parser to be aware of what is coming up, versus trying to act upon something it already parsed.

Scoping extended-words in the config file to a specific line would be another solution that would provide the same benefit, but possibly easier to implement. However, it would be more likely to get out of sync from the code so 😕. Raising it up to specific file, could be a good middle ground, similar to #193, but a bit less verbose since you wouldn't need to add extra files in those contexts.

This is definitely something I'd love to see. Feels so hacky globally ignoring a misspelling when it only matters in a handful of contexts. E.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Referer

[neiljp]

I just started looking at using typos today, and it's very fast :)

Line-specific ignores are the main feature I'd look for that isn't present already. For me this mainly applies to tests, which can include intentional errors. I agree with others that excluding an entire file (or splitting content out into another file), or an entire word, is rather a large hammer right now.

I found this is also missing in codespell, though being worked on, and various options were brought up to integrate with multiple languages too (codespell-project/codespell#1212).

[epage]

Huh, seeing the discussion about using cspell's syntax is interesting. I like the idea of a cross-tool syntax, much like burntsushi helped create a cross-search tool ignore file.

I'm still not a fan of supporting different comment styles. If anything, I'd prefer a common shibboleth that works independent of comment styles.