Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

misc: Docstring updates #2223

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 29, 2024
Merged

Conversation

ZoeLeibowitz
Copy link
Contributor

Started updating the docstrings for the website. Just want to check I am doing it correctly before I finish them...

@mloubout
Copy link
Contributor

mloubout commented Oct 5, 2023

Looks all good to me.

FYI, if you clone the website repo, you can render it locally to check if it looks like what you want

@@ -163,9 +163,9 @@ def __init__(self):
suffix : str, optional
The JIT compiler version to be used. For example, assuming ``CC=gcc`` and
``suffix='4.9'``, the ``gcc-4.9`` will be used as JIT compiler.
cpp : bool, optional
cpp : bool, optional, default=False
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is this format canonical in numpydoc ?

We never use , defaulat=... on the first line

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@@ -1148,19 +1148,19 @@ class PrecomputedSparseTimeFunction(AbstractSparseTimeFunction,
So for `r=6`, we will store 18 coefficients per sparse point (instead of
potentially 216). Must be a three-dimensional array of shape
`(npoint, grid.ndim, r)`.
space_order : int, optional
space_order : int, optional, default=0
Discretisation order for space derivatives. Defaults to 0.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now all the "Defaults to ..." in the subsequent lines become redundant so they should maybe be dropped. There are quite a few

@mloubout
Copy link
Contributor

@ZoeLeibowitz do you plan on making more change or should this be merged?

@ZoeLeibowitz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ZoeLeibowitz do you plan on making more change or should this be merged?

I just pushed some more changes

@mloubout
Copy link
Contributor

Ok thanks, let us know when it's ready

@ZoeLeibowitz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok thanks, let us know when it's ready

Hi, since I am not 100% sure, I will not make more changes

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 7, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.56%. Comparing base (ccfb823) to head (6ad769a).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2223      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.67%   86.56%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         229      229              
  Lines       43150    43150              
  Branches     8001     8001              
==========================================
- Hits        37401    37352      -49     
- Misses       5053     5105      +52     
+ Partials      696      693       -3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@FabioLuporini FabioLuporini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ZoeLeibowitz could you rebase and push again? in absence of code conflicts, I'd like to merge it

You will have to update the notebooks as well, or some tests will fail.

Have you ever run py.test on our jupyter notebooks locally supplying the --nbval argument?

@FabioLuporini
Copy link
Contributor

ah yes there are now some conflicts in dense.py

Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

@ZoeLeibowitz
Copy link
Contributor Author

ah yes there are now some conflicts in dense.py

Ah yes, I think it should be fixed now but could you trigger the CI to check please?

Copy link
Contributor

@FabioLuporini FabioLuporini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTG.

Copy link
Contributor

@mloubout mloubout left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good thanks a lot

@FabioLuporini
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, landing!

@FabioLuporini FabioLuporini merged commit 3f3dc58 into devitocodes:master Feb 29, 2024
31 checks passed
@FabioLuporini FabioLuporini deleted the docstrings branch February 29, 2024 08:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants