Closed ggrossetie closed 3 years ago
I think I'm missing something here. Isn't Asciidoctor
is what you've defined as the replacement? So the last example is already correct, and not reported because of that?
Sorry I wasn't clear, the last part is the expected result (not the actual/current result). Currently, both Asciidoctor
and AsciiDoctor
will be reported as error. With my proposal only AsciiDoctor
will be reported as an error.
Does it make sense?
Ah, yeah, that makes sense!
:tada: This issue has been resolved in version 2.0.9 :tada:
The release is available on:
Your semantic-release bot :package::rocket:
I'm using this rule as a replacement of Vale's
substitution
rule.I'm using the following definition to make sure that "Asciidoctor" and "AsciiDoc" have the correct casing:
Since this rule allows to define replacement/alternative. I think it would be useful to check that the replacement/alternative is not strictly equals to the match.
Under this proposal, the following sentence will report an error:
But the following will not: