Fix spelling mistakes across the whole repository (#3808)

**Update:** Pushed additional changes based on the review comments.

**This pull request fixes various spelling mistakes in this
repository.**

Most of the changes are contained in the first **3** commits:

- `Fix spelling mistakes in comments and docs`

- `Fix spelling mistakes in test names`

- `Fix spelling mistakes in error messages, panic messages, logs and
tracing`

Other source code spelling mistakes are separated into individual
commits for easier reviewing:

- `Fix the spelling of 'authority'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'REASONABLE_HEADERS_IN_JUSTIFICATION_ANCESTRY'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'prev_enqueud_messages'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'endpoint'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'children'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSiblingSovereignAccount'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSudoAccount'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'insufficient'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'PalletXcmExtrinsicsBenchmark'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'subtracted'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'CandidatePendingAvailability'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'exclusive'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'until'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'discriminator'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'nonexistent'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'subsystem'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'indices'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'committed'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'topology'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'response'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'beneficiary'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'formatted'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'UNKNOWN_PROOF_REQUEST'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'succeeded'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'reopened'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'proposer'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'InstantiationNonce'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'depositor'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'expiration'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'phantom'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'AggregatedKeyValue'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'randomness'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'defendant'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'AquaticMammal'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'transactions'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'PassingTracingSubscriber'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'TxSignaturePayload'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'versioning'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'descendant'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'overridden'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'network'`

Let me know if this structure is adequate.

**Note:** The usage of the words `Merkle`, `Merkelize`, `Merklization`,
`Merkelization`, `Merkleization`, is somewhat inconsistent but I left it
as it is.

~~**Note:** In some places the term `Receival` is used to refer to
message reception, IMO `Reception` is the correct word here, but I left
it as it is.~~

~~**Note:** In some places the term `Overlayed` is used instead of the
more acceptable version `Overlaid` but I also left it as it is.~~

~~**Note:** In some places the term `Applyable` is used instead of the
correct version `Applicable` but I also left it as it is.~~

**Note:** Some usage of British vs American english e.g. `judgement` vs
`judgment`, `initialise` vs `initialize`, `optimise` vs `optimize` etc.
are both present in different places, but I suppose that's
understandable given the number of contributors.

~~**Note:** There is a spelling mistake in `.github/CODEOWNERS` but it
triggers errors in CI when I make changes to it, so I left it as it
is.~~

polkadot/node/subsystem-bench/src/lib/approval/message_generator.rs

@@ -74,8 +74,8 @@ pub struct PeerMessagesGenerator {
 	pub validator_index: ValidatorIndex,
 	/// An array of pre-generated random samplings, that is used to determine, which nodes would
 	/// send a given assignment, to the node under test because of the random samplings.
-	/// As an optimization we generate this sampling at the begining of the test and just pick
-	/// one randomly, because always taking the samples would be too expensive for benchamrk.
+	/// As an optimization we generate this sampling at the beginning of the test and just pick
+	/// one randomly, because always taking the samples would be too expensive for benchmark.
 	pub random_samplings: Vec<Vec<ValidatorIndex>>,
 	/// Channel for sending the generated messages to the aggregator
 	pub tx_messages: futures::channel::mpsc::UnboundedSender<(Hash, Vec<MessagesBundle>)>,
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ impl PeerMessagesGenerator {
 		let all_messages = all_messages
 			.into_iter()
 			.flat_map(|(_, mut messages)| {
-				// Shuffle the messages inside the same tick, so that we don't priorites messages
+				// Shuffle the messages inside the same tick, so that we don't priorities messages
 				// for older nodes. we try to simulate the same behaviour as in real world.
 				messages.shuffle(&mut rand_chacha);
 				messages
@@ -560,12 +560,12 @@ struct TestSignInfo {
 	candidate_index: CandidateIndex,
 	/// The validator sending the assignments
 	validator_index: ValidatorIndex,
-	/// The assignments convering this candidate
+	/// The assignments covering this candidate
 	assignment: TestMessageInfo,
 }
 
 impl TestSignInfo {
-	/// Helper function to create a signture for all candidates in `to_sign` parameter.
+	/// Helper function to create a signature for all candidates in `to_sign` parameter.
 	/// Returns a TestMessage
 	fn sign_candidates(
 		to_sign: &mut Vec<TestSignInfo>,

polkadot/node/subsystem-bench/src/lib/approval/mod.rs

@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ pub struct ApprovalsOptions {
 	#[clap(short, long, default_value_t = 1.0)]
 	/// Max candidate to be signed in a single approval.
 	pub coalesce_std_dev: f32,
-	/// The maximum tranche diff between approvals coalesced toghther.
+	/// The maximum tranche diff between approvals coalesced together.
 	pub coalesce_tranche_diff: u32,
 	#[clap(short, long, default_value_t = false)]
 	/// Enable assignments v2.
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ struct BlockTestData {
 	total_candidates_before: u64,
 	/// The votes we sent.
 	/// votes[validator_index][candidate_index] tells if validator sent vote for candidate.
-	/// We use this to mark the test as succesfull if GetApprovalSignatures returns all the votes
+	/// We use this to mark the test as successful if GetApprovalSignatures returns all the votes
 	/// from here.
 	votes: Arc<Vec<Vec<AtomicBool>>>,
 }
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ struct GeneratedState {
 }
 
 /// Approval test state used by all mock subsystems to be able to answer messages emitted
-/// by the approval-voting and approval-distribution-subystems.
+/// by the approval-voting and approval-distribution-subsystems.
 ///
 /// This gets cloned across all mock subsystems, so if there is any information that gets
 /// updated between subsystems, they would have to be wrapped in Arc's.
@@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ struct PeerMessageProducer {
 
 impl PeerMessageProducer {
 	/// Generates messages by spawning a blocking task in the background which begins creating
-	/// the assignments/approvals and peer view changes at the begining of each block.
+	/// the assignments/approvals and peer view changes at the beginning of each block.
 	fn produce_messages(
 		mut self,
 		env: &TestEnvironment,
@@ -740,7 +740,7 @@ impl PeerMessageProducer {
 		}
 	}
 
-	// Initializes the candidates test data. This is used for bookeeping if more assignments and
+	// Initializes the candidates test data. This is used for bookkeeping if more assignments and
 	// approvals would be needed.
 	fn initialize_candidates_test_data(
 		&self,
@@ -767,7 +767,7 @@ impl PeerMessageProducer {
 }
 
 /// Helper function to build an overseer with the real implementation for `ApprovalDistribution` and
-/// `ApprovalVoting` subystems and mock subsytems for all others.
+/// `ApprovalVoting` subsystems and mock subsystems for all others.
 fn build_overseer(
 	state: &ApprovalTestState,
 	network: &NetworkEmulatorHandle,
@@ -936,7 +936,7 @@ pub async fn bench_approvals_run(
 	for block_num in 0..env.config().num_blocks {
 		let mut current_slot = tick_to_slot_number(SLOT_DURATION_MILLIS, system_clock.tick_now());
 
-		// Wait untill the time arrieves at the first slot under test.
+		// Wait until the time arrives at the first slot under test.
 		while current_slot < state.generated_state.initial_slot {
 			sleep(Duration::from_millis(5)).await;
 			current_slot = tick_to_slot_number(SLOT_DURATION_MILLIS, system_clock.tick_now());
@@ -961,7 +961,7 @@ pub async fn bench_approvals_run(
 	}
 
 	// Wait for all blocks to be approved before exiting.
-	// This is an invariant of the benchmark, if this does not happen something went teribbly wrong.
+	// This is an invariant of the benchmark, if this does not happen something went terribly wrong.
 	while state.last_approved_block.load(std::sync::atomic::Ordering::SeqCst) <
 		env.config().num_blocks as u32
 	{

polkadot/node/subsystem-bench/src/lib/approval/test_message.rs

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ pub struct TestMessageInfo {
 	pub msg: protocol_v3::ApprovalDistributionMessage,
 	/// The list of peers that would sends this message in a real topology.
 	/// It includes both the peers that would send the message because of the topology
-	/// or because of randomly chosing so.
+	/// or because of randomly choosing so.
 	pub sent_by: Vec<ValidatorIndex>,
 	/// The tranche at which this message should be sent.
 	pub tranche: u32,
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ impl MessagesBundle {
 
 	/// Tells if the bundle is needed for sending.
 	/// We either send it because we need more assignments and approvals to approve the candidates
-	/// or because we configured the test to send messages untill a given tranche.
+	/// or because we configured the test to send messages until a given tranche.
 	pub fn should_send(
 		&self,
 		candidates_test_data: &HashMap<(Hash, CandidateIndex), CandidateTestData>,
@@ -174,24 +174,24 @@ impl TestMessageInfo {
 		}
 	}
 
-	/// Returns a list of candidates indicies in this message
+	/// Returns a list of candidates indices in this message
 	pub fn candidate_indices(&self) -> HashSet<usize> {
-		let mut unique_candidate_indicies = HashSet::new();
+		let mut unique_candidate_indices = HashSet::new();
 		match &self.msg {
 			protocol_v3::ApprovalDistributionMessage::Assignments(assignments) =>
 				for (_assignment, candidate_indices) in assignments {
 					for candidate_index in candidate_indices.iter_ones() {
-						unique_candidate_indicies.insert(candidate_index);
+						unique_candidate_indices.insert(candidate_index);
 					}
 				},
 			protocol_v3::ApprovalDistributionMessage::Approvals(approvals) =>
 				for approval in approvals {
 					for candidate_index in approval.candidate_indices.iter_ones() {
-						unique_candidate_indicies.insert(candidate_index);
+						unique_candidate_indices.insert(candidate_index);
 					}
 				},
 		}
-		unique_candidate_indicies
+		unique_candidate_indices
 	}
 
 	/// Marks this message as no-shows if the number of configured no-shows is above the registered