feat(core): wrote `IveGerund` rule #1860

elijah-potter · 2025-09-03T20:52:24Z

Issues

#1753

Description

Adds a rule for addressing the grammatical error outlined in #1753

How Has This Been Tested?

Additional unit tests.

Checklist

I have performed a self-review of my own code
I have added tests to cover my changes

ccoVeille

While I've looking usage is endemic, others exist too

ccoVeille · 2025-09-03T21:00:16Z

harper-core/src/linting/ive_gerund.rs

+
+impl Default for IveGerund {
+    fn default() -> Self {
+        let expr = SequenceExpr::aco("I've")


"I/you/we/they have looking" can also be found

https://github.com/search?q=%2Fhave%20looking%2F&type=code

And "has looking"

https://github.com/search?q=%2Fhas+looking%2F&type=code

I've been thinking about the best way to handle contractions in the system generally for weeks. Currently they have no annotation in dictionary.dict. They probably call for something like a vec/slice of WordMetadata per "word" or such. In the meantime: I/we/you/they+have/had & he/she/it+has/had would be the full pattern.

ccoVeille · 2025-09-03T21:00:23Z

harper-core/src/linting/ive_gerund.rs

+
+impl Default for IveGerund {
+    fn default() -> Self {
+        let expr = SequenceExpr::aco("I've")


Also simple tick

https://github.com/search?q=%2Fi%E2%80%99ve+looking%2F&type=code

"I’ve looking"

https://github.com/mcgarrah/mcgarrah.github.io/blob/1c0af2cec529e611db4610521a5a31a26cb3c254/_posts/2014-07-01-wordpress-plugins.md?plain=1#L17

But this one might be more general about using simple quote or tick or back tick for contraction.

But people might disable a rule about contraction, so here this should be detected anyway

ccoVeille · 2025-09-03T21:04:58Z

harper-core/src/linting/ive_gerund.rs

+
+impl Default for IveGerund {
+    fn default() -> Self {
+        let expr = SequenceExpr::aco("I've")


We've, they've and you've can be found

https://github.com/search?q=%2F%5B%5Ei%5D%27ve+looking%2F&type=code

Probably all the 'd variants too for past perfect.

hippietrail · 2025-09-04T02:14:58Z

harper-core/src/linting/ive_gerund.rs

+
+use super::{ExprLinter, Lint, LintKind, Suggestion};
+
+pub struct IveGerund {


A gerund is an -ing form of a verb acting as a noun. This is actually a present participle, which is the -ing form of a verb in compound tenses (or adjectives which doesn't concern us here). And it's likely to apply to I've, I'd, we've, we'd, you've, you'd, he's, he'd, she's, she'd, it's, it'd, they've, and they'd.

The normal names for the compound tenses are present perfect "have eaten" and past perfect "had eaten". So we're dealing with a mixup of a perfect tense and a present participle. While gerund is "too nounish" we could chose one of the "verbish" common names for the -ing form: continuous or progressive. So maybe PerfectContinuous or PerfectProgressive would be good names for a broader version of the linter?

hippietrail · 2025-09-04T02:17:39Z

harper-core/src/linting/ive_gerund.rs

+    }
+
+    fn description(&self) -> &'static str {
+        "Detects the ungrammatical pattern `I've` followed directly by a gerund (e.g., `I've looking`) and suggests either the present progressive (`I'm …`) or the present perfect progressive (`I've been …`)."


Definitely avoid the word gerund in the message and definition. That would be a grammar checker spreading bad grammar (-: continuous, progressive, or -ing form. You've nailed the other terminology!

hippietrail · 2025-09-04T02:18:16Z

harper-core/src/linting/ive_gerund.rs

+        assert_good_and_bad_suggestions(
+            "I've looking into it.",
+            IveGerund::default(),
+            &["I'm looking into it.", "I've been looking into it."],


ccoVeille · 2025-09-05T18:33:56Z

harper-core/src/linting/ive_perfect_progressive.rs

+
+use super::{ExprLinter, Lint, LintKind, Suggestion};
+
+pub struct IvePerfectProgressive {


While the code is fine the name if the rule is a bit misleading.

It now supports:

other pronouns than I

other verb contraction than 've

I was thinking it doesn't really matter in the code but I think you're right because it's also going to be the name of an option.

Yes, that's my concern

ccoVeille

Nitpicking

ccoVeille · 2025-09-05T21:58:46Z

harper-core/src/linting/lint_group.rs

@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ use super::in_on_the_cards::InOnTheCards;
 use super::inflected_verb_after_to::InflectedVerbAfterTo;
 use super::its_contraction::ItsContraction;
 use super::its_possessive::ItsPossessive;
+use super::progressive_needs_be::ProgressiveNeedsBe;


Shouldn't it be moved aside pronoun_*

Here I feel the rule is added at the wrong place, assuming they are sorted alphabeticaly

ccoVeille · 2025-09-05T21:59:17Z

harper-core/src/linting/lint_group.rs

@@ -444,6 +445,7 @@ impl LintGroup {
        insert_struct_rule!(HowTo, true);
        insert_expr_rule!(HyphenateNumberDay, true);
        insert_expr_rule!(IAmAgreement, true);
+        insert_expr_rule!(ProgressiveNeedsBe, true);


Sane remark about the position among the list

ccoVeille · 2025-09-05T21:59:29Z

harper-core/src/linting/mod.rs

@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ mod it_is;
 mod it_would_be;
 mod its_contraction;
 mod its_possessive;
+mod progressive_needs_be;
 mod left_right_hand;


ccoVeille · 2025-09-05T21:59:37Z

harper-core/src/linting/mod.rs

@@ -185,6 +186,7 @@ pub use inflected_verb_after_to::InflectedVerbAfterTo;
 pub use initialism_linter::InitialismLinter;
 pub use its_contraction::ItsContraction;
 pub use its_possessive::ItsPossessive;
+pub use progressive_needs_be::ProgressiveNeedsBe;


feat(core): wrote IveGerund rule

72fdaf1

elijah-potter requested a review from hippietrail September 3, 2025 20:52

elijah-potter added harper-core linting labels Sep 3, 2025

chore(core): cargo fmt

d1ca8b6

ccoVeille reviewed Sep 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

hippietrail reviewed Sep 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

elijah-potter added 2 commits September 5, 2025 12:11

chore(core): rename IveGerund -> IvePerfectProgressive

345d687

fix(core): address remaining comments from review.

dd719f1

ccoVeille reviewed Sep 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

elijah-potter added 3 commits September 5, 2025 15:27

feat(core): cover non-contracted cases

adbdb48

test(core): add many additional tests

92408e3

chore(core): rename IvePerfectProgressive -> ProgressiveNeedsBe

d1dc292

ccoVeille reviewed Sep 5, 2025

View reviewed changes


		use super::{ExprLinter, Lint, LintKind, Suggestion};

		pub struct IveGerund {


		use super::{ExprLinter, Lint, LintKind, Suggestion};

		pub struct IvePerfectProgressive {

feat(core): wrote IveGerund rule #1860

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat(core): wrote IveGerund rule #1860

Uh oh!

Conversation

elijah-potter commented Sep 3, 2025

Issues

Description

How Has This Been Tested?

Checklist

Uh oh!

ccoVeille left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ccoVeille Sep 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ccoVeille left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat(core): wrote `IveGerund` rule #1860

feat(core): wrote `IveGerund` rule #1860

ccoVeille Sep 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading