Update rtl_ltr_linter.py

[duvvuvenkataramana]

What does this PR do?

Add resource(s) | Remove resource(s) | Add info | Improve repo

IMPORTANT

• Read our contributing guidelines.
• Is this a revision of a previously submitted PR? If so, STOP! Go back, reopen the PR, and add commit(s) the branch you previously submitted. Please don't make the job of reviewing more difficult by hiding previous work.

For resources

Description

Why is this valuable (or not)?

How do we know it's really free?

For book lists, is it a book? For course lists, is it a course? etc.

Checklist:

• Search for duplicates.
• Include author(s) and platform where appropriate.
• Put lists in alphabetical order, correct spacing.
• Add needed indications (PDF, access notes, under construction).
• Used an informative name for this pull request.

Follow-up

• Check the status of GitHub Actions and resolve any reported warnings!

[eshellman]

please explain what you've changed

[duvvuvenkataramana]

I updated in short form

[duvvuvenkataramana]

@eshellman

[duvvuvenkataramana]

Summary of Changes
Refactored rtl_ltr_linter.py for simplicity and maintainability—significantly reduced codebase size.

Improved documentation: added and clarified docstrings/comments for easier understanding and future contributions.

Enhanced path and error handling to increase reliability.

Strengthened regex and directionality detection to handle RTL/LTR issues more accurately.

Reworked issue reporting to follow a structured format compatible with GitHub Actions output.

Removed redundant/unused functions and optimized logic for better performance.

This update makes the linter more robust, user-friendly, and maintainable for the project.

@eshellman

[eshellman]

Thanks. hope @gabriele-ciccotelli can look at this

[gabriele-ciccotelli]

Hi @duvvuvenkataramana, thanks for your contribution.

Some parts of the code seem “cleaner” and path management is more robust.

However, if I'm being honest, it seems to me that part of the code was generated by AI and pasted in without much attention:

• On line 13, in the initial docstring, it is written “If you want, I can run unit tests on sample files or add a --debug flag to print more context.”;

• Again, in the initial docstring, all descriptions of the main features have been replaced with a description of the changes made, but anyone reading the file for the first time in the future will not immediately see what the key features of the code are, they will only see what changes have been made compared to the previous version, instead the code should always be understandable to those reading it for the first time.

• In addition, most of the comments useful for understanding the logic behind the code and the reasons for certain implementations (e.g., the explanation regarding chr(0x200F)), as well as many function docstrings, have been removed, making the code even less understandable and documented.

[eshellman]

Thanks for the review @gabriele-ciccotelli