doc: Fix typos pointed out by lint-spelling #24203

Occuring -> occurring (random.h) Covert -> convert (chacha_poly_aead.cpp) Fix nWe false positive in blockchain.cpp (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24203#issuecomment-1025116962)

Got it by linter, other ones are false positives.

<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

• #23813 (Add test and docs for getblockfrompeer with pruning by fjahr)
• #23441 (fuzz: Differential fuzzing for ChaCha20Forward4064-Poly1305@bitcoin cipher suite by stratospher)
• #23233 (BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer by dhruv)
• #20962 (Alter the ChaCha20Poly1305@Bitcoin AEAD to the new specification by jonasschnelli)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

utACK 9255261aba5663065abda29867078f0faa288cd7

Concept ACK

I agree with @jonatack suggestion. This PR's scope should be broadened to correct all the lint spelling check instances, either by fixing the typo or marking the instances as false positive.

After the recent update of the PR. There are still three instances in the lint-spelling.sh test that needs to be addressed:

• nWe
• creat
• ba

I would also suggest renaming the PR heading to better to infer the new general goal of this PR.

• nWe
• creat
• ba

These are all three false positives. Suggestion for fixing the nWe one:

--- a/src/rpc/blockchain.cpp
+++ b/src/rpc/blockchain.cpp
@@ -790,10 +790,10 @@ static RPCHelpMan getblockfrompeer()
 {
     return RPCHelpMan{
         "getblockfrompeer",
-        "Attempt to fetch block from a given peer.\n"
-        "\nWe must have the header for this block, e.g. using submitheader.\n"
-        "Subsequent calls for the same block and a new peer will cause the response from the previous peer to be ignored.\n"
-        "\nReturns an empty JSON object if the request was successfully scheduled.",
+        "Attempt to fetch block from a given peer.\n\n"
+        "We must have the header for this block, e.g. using submitheader.\n"
+        "Subsequent calls for the same block and a new peer will cause the response from the previous peer to be ignored.\n\n"
+        "Returns an empty JSON object if the request was successfully scheduled.",
         {
             {"block_hash", RPCArg::Type::STR_HEX, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The block hash to try to fetch"},
             {"peer_id", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The peer to fetch it from (see getpeerinfo for peer IDs)"},

Nice suggestion @prusnak for nWe. Going to address it.

force-pushed addressing @prusnak's comments

ACK bad0e7f

test/lint/lint-spelling.sh still returns:

src/util/syscall_sandbox.cpp:128: creat ==> create
test/functional/data/rpc_decodescript.json:81: ba ==> by, be
test/functional/data/rpc_decodescript.json:84: ba ==> by, be

Suggestion

--- a/test/lint/lint-spelling.ignore-words.txt
+++ b/test/lint/lint-spelling.ignore-words.txt
@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 asend
+ba
 blockin
 cachable
+creat
 fo
 fpr
 hights

(creat is a valid linux syscall)

Concept ACK

force-pushed addressing @jonatack's comments. Thank you for the reviews!

ACK 58ccc885413d66b4fa581574360febfa27eb545f

tested that ./test/lint/lint-spelling.sh returns no errors

utACK, it's good to fix this. The changes make sense, I did not validate that the linter output is clean now.