Move README content to docstrings & update docs website#106
Conversation
I agree, but still I think leaving the page in the docs makes sense, if only to show readers that there are two aspects to the package and only one is documented yet. |
Codecov ReportPatch and project coverage have no change.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #106 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 82.94% 82.94%
=======================================
Files 8 8
Lines 428 428
=======================================
Hits 355 355
Misses 73 73
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
devmotion
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have to turn to something else for a while but I had a look at large parts of the PR. Here are some initial comments (that can probably be extrapolated).
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
|
thanks for the huge merge conflict from JuliaFormatter 🤣 |
|
Ooops, sorry 😬 |
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <devmotion@users.noreply.github.com>
|
I encountered a weird behavior where the cross-references in the docs wouldn't work with the |
devmotion
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I encountered a weird behavior where the cross-references in the docs wouldn't work with the AD shortcut for AbstractDifferentiation, even though I imported it as such in docs/make.jl. This explains the workflow failure on the penultimate commit. Do you think it's a Documenter bug or just me asking too much?
Based on the CI log, Documenter tries to resolve the references within the AbstractDifferentiation/AD module - but of course AD does not exist there, only AbstractDifferentiation. So maybe one option would be to set the current module to Main.
Generally, I think it's not too bad (maybe even clearer?) if the docs do only use the user-defined convenience alias in the examples. On the other hand, it creates a slight inconsistency...
| /docs/build | ||
| /docs/src/index.md No newline at end of file | ||
| /docs/src/index.md | ||
| /docs/Manifest.toml No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe instead just change /Manifest.toml to Manifest.toml?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we might need other manifests later on, e.g. for fully reproducible benchmarks
I do agree, but I don't think it should block this PR.
I looked around and I didn't find a way to do that in the kwargs of |
This was done initially but caused some problems (would have to look it up though). Generally, my gut feeling is that it is cleaner and easier to let users decide whether and what abbreviation they want to use. |
|
Thanks for the thorough review! |
README content is not discoverable by users in the REPL.
This PR fixes that by moving the function descriptions to docstrings, and updating the documentation website to reflect that.
docs/Manifest.tomland activate CompatHelper ondocs/Project.toml@primitivedoes and how to use itNo actual Julia code has been changed except in
docs/make.jl