Pre-commit.ci test

[lucasssvaz]

Testing of pre-commit.ci lite. Configured to run only in modified files.

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Config files only": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Fix codespell config": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Make codespell manual": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "[pre-commit.ci lite] apply automatic fixes": summary looks empty type/action looks empty Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).

	Messages
📖	You might consider squashing your 4 commits (simplifying branch history).

👋 Hello lucasssvaz, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- Addressing info messages (📖) is strongly recommended; they're less critical but valuable.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 30f0e98

[lucasssvaz]

Adding dummy non-formatted file to test.

[lucasssvaz]

Looks ok. Adding another dummy file.

[lucasssvaz]

Looks OK. Changing the style updates old files as well. Testing adding mixed file types and changing already existing files.

[lucasssvaz]

C/C++ files looks ok. Black cannot always fix everything by itself (for example in dummy.py). When adding the python linter we will need to adjust some files manually. For files it can't fix, the CI will fail and show in the log where formatting errors were detected. Testing codespell.

[lucasssvaz]

Codespell works fine. Just need to be careful with false positives when updating the codebase by locally disabling the write flag and adding the false positives to the config file.

[lucasssvaz]

Separated codespell config into a new file to make it more intuitive. Also delete pyproject and move black config as hook argument (as it was just one option). Need to investigate prettier and yamllint.

[lucasssvaz]

Prettier and yamllint looks properly configured. Testing in the entire codebase to check for any potential issues.