The convention that [textdomain] uses "/translations" is strongly established, and I can't think of a legitimate reason for an add-on not to be following it.
The binary path check is a crude test. The names that took hold for menu image directories are "/public" and variations of "/external*", so we look for those strings. It does not catch the worst case of all - when all binaries are outside the campaign define, not just a set-aside directory.
I first thought of these checks while brainstorming ways to use the in_textdomain and in_binary_path code in hack_syntax(). However, realizing that these checks did not really hack any syntax, I wanted to find someplace in the sanity checks where the code would fit. I finally found it.
While there are many places that wmllint assumes that "#" begins a comment, from Vultraz's description it sounded like parse_attribute was being used to find the attribute's value, and then a string_strip was done on the value. So I looked for the direct cause in wmltools.
Again, the solution is to look for whitespace to precede the hashsign.
Incidentally, I don't know why the original code had the first "where -= 1", then had value and comment go from [:where+1] and [where+1:].
I had a hunch that the hash would be the problem, because I realized that wmllint usually just looked for '#' to figure out if a line contained a comment, and that this also matched pango color coding. My wmllint backslash/userdata commits used this same re.split match to prevent this false positive.
(It won't prevent all unintended matches, e.g. "Guard #4", but I don't think that can be helped.)
The problem came, I believe, when the old line interacted with the block ten lines down:
elif eligible.count('"') % 2:
dostrip = not dostrip
The value's closing quote was on the other side of the split.
Here's the rationale for these additions:
* There is so much focus on wmllint's role in conversion, that many people may not think of it as a validator also (I didn't). So often, stumped authors ask in the forums about problems that would have been fixed or pointed out if they'd run wmllint. I want to encourage awareness of wmllint as a validator.
* Folded a line to fit normal 80-width CLI.
* Help contained no mention of this rather redundant option.
* How many people don't realize that ESR's long introduction is there?
* Some users may not understand why they're being dumped back to wmllint's help.
I used "inconsistency" for the actual variable name, because "known" seems more likely to be accidentally reused.
I pondered whether to allow the scenario check to go forward, but decided to just make a clean break.
Note that this does not prevent any of the information-gathering for the consistency check, just the check itself.
Why would you want to use this option? Of course, you should run the consistency check at some point. But if you simply want to recheck if you've fixed all the bugs in your campaign, you might not want to have wmllint slog through data/core again.
According to the introduction, stringfreeze does *not* suppress the warning, and the code bears this out.
I wonder how often this option is actually used.
I realized that as it stood, my dictionary would linger, bad if wmllint were being run on multiple campaigns. A special unwho keyword, 'all', clears the dictionary.
Now that we see how the whopairs are recognized, we can see that the magic comment accepts a comma-separated list, for macros that deal with more than one character.
We also see that if it is necessary to remove a character who leaves the party, this can be done with another entry prefixed by double minuses.
The "recognize" magic comment only covers one scenario; but what about macros that are used in many scenarios?
This new magic comment creates dictionary pairs of macros with the characters they are associated with. If this is not yet clear, hopefully the following commits will show the full picture.
