feat(funbox): added support for cyrillic and arabic charset (@m4dd0c)

[m4dd0c]

Description

Added Arabic & Russian (cyrillic) Funboxes

Added two new funboxes Arabic & Russian with gibberish word generators. Also added logic to automatically force the Arabic language if the Arabic funbox is active to prevent config issues.

Changes

• Added getArabic() and getRussian() utility functions.
• Integrated both into funbox-functions.ts and list.ts as Metadata.
• Forced Arabic language setting in setLanguage() when needed.
• Updated FunboxName types.

Closes #6181

Let me know If any changes are required.

[github-actions]

Continuous integration check(s) failed. Please review the failing check's logs and make the necessary changes.

[byseif21]

also for the names, like here "arabic" feels too generic and misses the random word vibe, unlike gibberish and others. I propose "Fawda" (فوضي, means in arabic "mess") or "Harfiyya" (حرفية, from “letter”). Both are catchy and hint at the playful chaos. It would be much better if it was as arabic word but I think this isn't an option , idk about russian but If this is agreed I think it should be changed too.
Nice work though!

Before all of that also wait for @Miodec to approve everything.

[byseif21]

also idea , since those are nearly gibberish again , instead of making those a new funboxes shouldn't we just try to make the gibberish mode support different lanuages ? like selecting the gibberish funbox using english,to generate a latin letters , if with using arabic to generate and show arabic letters and so on !?

[fehmer]

also idea , since those are nearly gibberish again , instead of making those a new funboxes shouldn't we just try to make the gibberish mode support different lanuages ? like selecting the gibberish funbox using english,to generate a latin letters , if with using arabic to generate and show arabic letters and so on !?

I was thinking the same

[m4dd0c]

also idea , since those are nearly gibberish again , instead of making those a new funboxes shouldn't we just try to make the gibberish mode support different lanuages ? like selecting the gibberish funbox using english,to generate a latin letters , if with using arabic to generate and show arabic letters and so on !?

Great Idea actually. I'd love to work on it.
Also @fehmer supporting the idea. So we are good to go I believe.

I wonder What's gonna happen to the current issue #6181 and PR #6488

[byseif21]

Hi @m4dd0c Very nice work!
Just a little curious - did you test if the Arabic is shown with connected or separated characters here?

[m4dd0c]

Hi @m4dd0c Very nice work! Just a little curious - did you test if the Arabic is shown with connected or separated characters here?

Thank you @byseif21
I don't understand Arabic. can you check and tell me.

[byseif21]

I checked and they are fine connected as it should, however I noticed another thing here that the arabic ranges have the extended Arabic letters and they aren't typeable for the Arabic languages (arabic , Arabic_Egypt) as they use standard characters only, but the extended letters may be used in different languages l(e.g., Persian, Kurdish, Urdu) so I think we should separate the range to be at least like two , one as standard for the language and a general one, eg

    standard_arabic: [                                        // this witout the extended
      { start: 1569, end: 1594 }, // U+0621–U+063A (ء to غ)
      { start: 1601, end: 1608 }, // U+0641–U+0648 (ف to و)  
      { start: 1610,  end: 1610}  // U+064A (ي)
     arabic: {                                                // this with
        start: 1569, // ء (U+0621)
        end: 1610   // ي (U+064A)
      },

also I think some other languages may have that problem too, so doing the same approach ( one without the extended & one with the extended) or doing range for each language separately will be better I guess , we can just leave the rest and wait for a native user to put them correctly . or we can leave them like that generally and wait for navtive user for each language to notice and if he felt the need to change/fix the range, he do it himself or open an issue with it, idk

[m4dd0c]

I checked and they are fine connected as it should, however I noticed another thing here that the arabic ranges have the extended Arabic letters and they aren't typeable for the Arabic languages (arabic , Arabic_Egypt) as they use standard characters only, but the extended letters may be used in different languages l(e.g., Persian, Kurdish, Urdu) so I think we should separate the range to be at least like two , one as standard for the language and a general one, eg

    standard_arabic: [                                        // this witout the extended
      { start: 1569, end: 1594 }, // U+0621–U+063A (ء to غ)
      { start: 1601, end: 1608 }, // U+0641–U+0648 (ف to و)  
      { start: 1610,  end: 1610}  // U+064A (ي)
     arabic: {                                                // this with
        start: 1569, // ء (U+0621)
        end: 1610   // ي (U+064A)
      },

also I think some other languages may have that problem too, so doing the same approach ( one without the extended & one with the extended) or doing range for each language separately will be better I guess , we can just leave the rest and wait for a native user to put them correctly . or we can leave them like that generally and wait for native user for each language to notice and if he felt the need to change/fix the range, he do it himself or open an issue with it, idk

I intentionally kept the charset range minimal, since there are plenty of bloated letters that may cause issues while typing.
e.g., blank characters, unsupported characters, and letters that are not being used in any language.

Furthermore, If I go with the approach you have mentioned then I wonder how someone would select between the standard and non-standard version of different languages?

What I have in mind is, We can have 2 funboxes,

1. Gibberish Standard
2. Gibberish Extended

Thoughts?

[fehmer]

I think mios idea was to not overcomplicate this feature. #6488 (comment)

With latin we use the most basic alphabet a-z. For like italian we would have unused letters (like j and k) and are missing letters like (è).

Can we do the same for the other languages, find a minimal, common set which should be typeable?

[m4dd0c]

I think mios idea was to not overcomplicate this feature. #6488 (comment)

With latin we use the most basic alphabet a-z. For like italian we would have unused letters (like j and k) and are missing letters like (è).

Can we do the same for the other languages, find a minimal, common set which should be typeable?

This PR, Currently supporting minimal, common set range only as @Miodec suggested.

[byseif21]

I checked and they are fine connected as it should, however I noticed another thing here that the arabic ranges have the extended Arabic letters and they aren't typeable for the Arabic languages (arabic , Arabic_Egypt) as they use standard characters only, but the extended letters may be used in different languages l(e.g., Persian, Kurdish, Urdu) so I think we should separate the range to be at least like two , one as standard for the language and a general one, eg

    standard_arabic: [                                        // this witout the extended
      { start: 1569, end: 1594 }, // U+0621–U+063A (ء to غ)
      { start: 1601, end: 1608 }, // U+0641–U+0648 (ف to و)  
      { start: 1610,  end: 1610}  // U+064A (ي)
     arabic: {                                                // this with
        start: 1569, // ء (U+0621)
        end: 1610   // ي (U+064A)
      },

also I think some other languages may have that problem too, so doing the same approach ( one without the extended & one with the extended) or doing range for each language separately will be better I guess , we can just leave the rest and wait for a native user to put them correctly . or we can leave them like that generally and wait for native user for each language to notice and if he felt the need to change/fix the range, he do it himself or open an issue with it, idk

I intentionally kept the charset range minimal, since there are plenty of bloated letters that may cause issues while typing. e.g., blank characters, unsupported characters, and letters that are not being used in any language.

Furthermore, If I go with the approach you have mentioned then I wonder how someone would select between the standard and non-standard version of different languages?

What I have in mind is, We can have 2 funboxes,

1. Gibberish Standard
2. Gibberish Extended

Thoughts?

No one will select anything, and we don't have to make a two different modes, the languages will just use different charset names in the language files , language eg. for the arabic with standard letters (arabic , Arabic_Egypt) will put in the charset, charset: standard_arabic
and the languages that need the extended will set it as charset: arabic , just like that

[byseif21]

I think mios idea was to not overcomplicate this feature. #6488 (comment)

With latin we use the most basic alphabet a-z. For like italian we would have unused letters (like j and k) and are missing letters like (è).

Can we do the same for the other languages, find a minimal, common set which should be typeable?

Okay that sound the best solution to not overcomplacate the things more than that here , I did the search and that may be the best ranges we can go with for now , all without the extended letters, rare characters, or problematic symbols

arabic: [
      { start: 1569, end: 1594 }, // U+0621–U+063A (ء to غ)
      { start: 1601, end: 1608 }, // U+0641–U+0648 (ف to و)
      { start: 1610,  end: 1610}  // U+064A (ي)
    ],
    latin: {
      start: 97,  // a (U+0061)
      end: 122    // z (U+007A)
    },
    cyrillic: {
      start: 1072, // а (U+0430)
      end: 1103    // я (U+044F)
    },
    devanagari: [
      { start: 2309, end: 2361 }, // U+0905–U+0939 (अ to ह)
      { start: 2366, end: 2376 }  // U+093E–U+0948 (vowel signs आ to ऐ)
    ],
    geez: [
      { start: 4768, end: 4960 } // U+1200–U+135F (ሀ to ፟)
    ],
    tamil: [
      { start: 2949, end: 3020 }, // U+0B85–U+0BBC (அ to ஔ)
      { start: 3006, end: 3028 }  // U+0BBE–U+0BCC (vowel signs ா to ௌ)
    ],
    telugu: [
      { start: 3077, end: 3148 }, // U+0C05–U+0C4C (అ to ౌ)
      { start: 3158, end: 3160 }  // U+0C56–U+0C58 (additional vowels ౖ to ౘ)
    ],
    bengali: [
      { start: 2437, end: 2489 }, // U+0985–U+09B9 (অ to হ)
      { start: 2494, end: 2508 }  // U+09BE–U+09CC (vowel signs া to ৌ)
    ],
    malayalam: [
      { start: 3333, end: 3396 }, // U+0D05–U+0D3C (അ to ഹ)
      { start: 3398, end: 3404 }  // U+0D3E–U+0D44 (vowel signs ാ to ൄ)
    ],
    kannada: [
      { start: 3205, end: 3268 }, // U+0C85–U+0CBC (ಅ to ಹ)
      { start: 3270, end: 3276 }  // U+0CBE–U+0CC4 (vowel signs ಾ to ೄ)
    ],
    burmese: [
      { start: 4096, end: 4138 } // U+1000–U+102A (က to ဪ)
    ],
    tibetan: [
      { start: 3904, end: 3911 } // U+0F40–U+0F47 (ཀ to ཧ)
    ],
    sinhala: [
      { start: 3461, end: 3516 }, // U+0D85–U+0DBC (අ to හ)
      { start: 3535, end: 3551 }  // U+0DCF–U+0DDF (vowel signs ඾ to ෟ)
    ],
    hebrew: {
      start: 1488, // א (U+05D0)
      end: 1514    // ת (U+05EA)
    },
    thai: [
      { start: 3585, end: 3631 } // U+0E01–U+0E2F (ก to ๏)
    ],
    greek: {
      start: 945,  // α (U+03B1)
      end: 969     // ω (U+03C9)
    },
    han: [
      { start: 19968, end: 27903 } // U+4E00–U+6CAF (common CJK ideographs)
    ],
    hangul: {
      start: 44032, // 가 (U+AC00)
      end: 55203    // 힣 (U+D7A3)
    },
    khmer: [
      { start: 6016, end: 6067 } // U+1780–U+17B3 (ក to ឳ)
    ],
    ol_chiki: [
      { start: 7248, end: 7293 } // U+1C5A–U+1C7D (ᱚ to ᱽ)
    ],
    hiragana: {
      start: 12353, // あ (U+3041)
      end: 12438    // ん (U+3096)
    },
    katakana: {
      start: 12449, // ア (U+30A1)
      end: 12538    // ン (U+30FA)
    }
  };
 

[m4dd0c]

I think mios idea was to not overcomplicate this feature. #6488 (comment)

With latin we use the most basic alphabet a-z. For like italian we would have unused letters (like j and k) and are missing letters like (è).

Can we do the same for the other languages, find a minimal, common set which should be typeable?

Okay that sound the best solution to not overcomplacate the things more than that here , I did the search and that may be the best ranges we can go with for now , all without the extended letters, rare characters, or problematic symbols

arabic: [
      { start: 1569, end: 1594 }, // U+0621–U+063A (ء to غ)
      { start: 1601, end: 1608 }, // U+0641–U+0648 (ف to و)
      { start: 1610,  end: 1610}  // U+064A (ي)
    ],
....
 

Well, I like the idea. I'll make proposed changes.
But not sure what @Miodec 's take on this.

I will update the getGibberish logic to generate combined letters (supporting matras) for certain scripts e.g., devanagari.

[github-actions]

Continuous integration check(s) failed. Please review the failing check's logs and make the necessary changes.