Groups

[j10sanders]

Fix issue 132

[j10sanders]

The groups.py format is a bit unordinary because I made it possible to have more than one generic group term to look for (without duplicating code).

Currently, the generic terms are set to "group" and "bunch". I imagine there are other generic grouping terms that people use too often, and they can easily be added to the terms variable.

[joshmgrant]

@j10sanders Have you considered adding a test corresponding to groups.py? If it's a new module it would be good to have a small set of unit tests added with the new check module.

[j10sanders]

@joshmgrant, good call. I've added tests to the pull request.

[j10sanders]

@michaelpacer @suchow, any feedback on this pr?

[j10sanders]

ping @michaelpacer @suchow

[suchow]

Hi @j10sanders. Sorry for the delay in reviewing this PR. I think I may have misunderstood your comments on #132, which I had understood as a proposal to flesh out terms.venery [1], not create a new check. Is this meant as a replacement? Otherwise, it would be good to combine them.

[1] https://github.com/amperser/proselint/blob/master/proselint/checks/terms/venery.py

[j10sanders]

Thanks, I hadn't realized that check existed. I believe mine completely replaces it, but I'll check to be sure.

[j10sanders]

@suchow, which format do you prefer? Should I merge groups into vennery, or the other way around?

[j10sanders]

@suchow, which format do you prefer? Should I merge groups into vennery, or the other way around?

[suchow]

Hey, sorry for the slowness — let's bring everything into terms.venery.