Add 'requestor->requester'

[sirosen]

No description provided.

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

Note that other native speakers might think requestor is correct English:
openssl/openssl#20910 (comment)

From dictionaries:

• Oxford Learner's Dictionary lacks both forms
• Cambridge suggests requester, but requestor is also acceptable.
• Collins suggests requester too, but requestor is "a rare spelling of requester".
• Merriam-Webster knows only requester.

Google Ngram Viewer tends to agree it is requester over requestor:

From What's the difference between "requester" and "requestor"?:

Both are in dictionaries. I've heard people insist "requester" is correct for a person who requests something, and that "requestor" is wrong there, leaving me to wonder how it is used. Requestor happens to be marked as an error in my browser's spellchecker.

COCA for requester/requestor indicates that requester is used for people and requestor is used in technical senses like a part of a program. A google ngram for requester/requestor shows that requester is also a bit more common.

Not sure we should keep this fix in codespell though. Opinions?

[sirosen]

That's interesting background. I wasn't aware that "requestor" could be valid.

One of the uses of codespell which I care about is ensuring that documentation -- which may be generated from source -- is consistent and correct.
For that purpose, preferring the significantly more common form is useful.

The harm in disallowing a very rare spelling is that it may read as a false negative to someone who has that spelling and is using it intentionally. This seems similar to the problem with obscure proper nouns (e.g. "Nome"). I think this is acceptable, but, of course, I'm the one who proposed the check.

I don't know if this has any bearing on the issue, but, having now seen the distinction above between a person and a machine or mechanism, I would strongly discourage that usage if I encountered it in code reviews or a similar context. It's sufficiently obscure that we cannot expect a reader to know it, so it's better to find another way to make the distinction.