Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add glossary check for source stings problematic in CSV #12792

Open
nijel opened this issue Oct 16, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Add glossary check for source stings problematic in CSV #12792

nijel opened this issue Oct 16, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement Adding or requesting a new feature.
Milestone

Comments

@nijel
Copy link
Member

nijel commented Oct 16, 2024

Describe the problem

Some strings can't be exposed in CSV to automatic translation backends (see #12791). Weblate should warn that these are problematic.

Describe the solution you would like

Add glossary only check to warn about using any of =+@- at the beginning of the string for both source and translation.

Describe alternatives you have considered

#12791 will deal with such strings, but these will be missing from the sync (or problematic characters stripped), so user should be notified of that.

Screenshots

No response

Additional context

Currently, no checks are triggered on glossary components:

if self.translation.component.is_glossary:
# We might eventually run some checks on glossary
checks = {}

@nijel nijel added the enhancement Adding or requesting a new feature. label Oct 16, 2024
@nijel nijel added this to the 5.9 milestone Oct 16, 2024
Copy link

Thank you for your report; the issue you have reported has just been fixed.

  • In case you see a problem with the fix, please comment on this issue.
  • In case you see a similar problem, please open a separate issue.
  • If you are happy with the outcome, don’t hesitate to support Weblate by making a donation.

@nijel nijel reopened this Oct 28, 2024
@gersona
Copy link
Collaborator

gersona commented Oct 29, 2024

@nijel you reopened the issue after #12806 was merged, is there anything that needs to be corrected ?

@nijel
Copy link
Member Author

nijel commented Oct 29, 2024

That addresses #12791. There still remains this issue to let user be aware that something is wrong with the glossary term.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Adding or requesting a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants