I'm liking your reviews these days :)

When testing the action on this branch, it now correctly parses the .ini and correctly identifies the Canonical rules that were broken.

However, the Vale.Spelling style throws errors inside the Accept.txt file:

{"message": "[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'Anbox'?", "location": {"path": "styles/config/vocabularies/Canonical/Accept.txt", "range": {"start": {"line": 1, "column": 1}}}, "severity": "ERROR"
{"message": "[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'Kubeflow'?", "location": {"path": "styles/config/vocabularies/Canonical/Accept.txt", "range": {"start": {"line": 2, "column": 9}}}, "severity": "ERROR"}
{"message": "[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'Charmhub'?", "location": {"path": "styles/config/vocabularies/Canonical/Accept.txt", "range": {"start": {"line": 3, "column": 1}}}, "severity": "ERROR"}
{"message": "[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'Multipass'?", "location": {"path": "styles/config/vocabularies/Canonical/Accept.txt", "range": {"start": {"line": 17, "column": 1}}}, "severity": "ERROR"}
{"message": "[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'Snapcraft'?", "location": {"path": "styles/config/vocabularies/Canonical/Accept.txt", "range": {"start": {"line": 21, "column": 1}}}, "severity": "ERROR"}
{"message": "[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'snapd'?", "location": {"path": "styles/config/vocabularies/Canonical/Accept.txt", "range": {"start": {"line": 22, "column": 1}}}, "severity": "ERROR"}

So even if there are no real style or spelling issues, it seems like the action would fail by default.

I'm still trying to work out why this might be happening. (Is the Accept.txt not being identified properly? Is Vale even supposed to be running checks in the /styles directory?)

Update:
The action had the behavior described in my previous comment for three reasons:

• accept.txt and reject.txt should be in lowercase letters, otherwise they won't get picked up by Vale. This is part of the reason why Vale was throwing spelling errors in those files.
  • Solved this by renaming the files.
• Since the action copies the /style directory to a temporary folder in the repository when it's running, its contents will get included in Vale checks when configured to run from the repo's root directory. This is the other reason why the accept.txt was getting checked, as well as the .yaml rule files.
  • Mitigated this by specifying relevant file extensions in the .ini. These false positives can only be fully avoided (afaik) if the repository can run Vale checks on a specific directory instead of all files (this would be specified in the files parameter of the workflow)
• Terms with two words in the accept.txt file like Charmed Kubeflow don't get considered as exceptions when the individual words show up on their own (e.g. just Kubeflow)
  • Fixed this by adding entries with the individual words.

They do. And we tested them. Well, I watched Andreia test them

🍰 all round, well done team