occ_impl doc strings

[marcus7070]

I've realised that there are a few useful methods in the occ_impl layer that I wasn't familar with. So I'm going through and adding docstrings to a few and fixing any inconsistent formatting or other small things I see.

[marcus7070]

Before I get too far I thought I should just check, these methods don't have doc strings because no one has got around to it yet, correct? Not because they are supposed to be hidden from users or sphinx? Or because the OCCT docs are supposed to be the only source and we don't want to repeat this stuff in CQ?

edit: For example, Shape.ShapeType looks like it should be a private method and Shape.geomType is the user facing method. At the moment ShapeType doesn't show up on the sphinx docs and I'm thinking I'll leave a doc string off that one (since I think it should actually be a private method).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #491 (202b8af) into master (5b5d8e0) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #491   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.65%   93.65%           
=======================================
  Files          30       30           
  Lines        5881     5881           
  Branches      626      626           
=======================================
  Hits         5508     5508           
  Misses        234      234           
  Partials      139      139           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
cadquery/occ_impl/shapes.py	90.94% <ø> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5b5d8e0...408e4de. Read the comment docs.

[marcus7070]

I tried to squash commits and something went horribly wrong. Successfully squashed with that second force push now.

[marcus7070]

There might be a problem with sphinx auto type hints. When self is type hinted it does this:

Is that correct behaviour?

[marcus7070]

I'm done for now. If I'm feeling masochistic again I'll try to do some more in another PR.

[adam-urbanczyk]

Thanks @marcus7070 - I think it was due to all of the above reasons.

[marcus7070]

I think it was due to all of the above reasons.

Ok then, if there are reasons to not have doc strings on any of these methods then please do remove them from this PR or reject it entirely. I don't mind; I did the work to familiarise myself with the methods, it's not wasted effort.

[adam-urbanczyk]

Thanks @marcus7070 , I think we should merge it before 2.1. In the end it does not hurt to have better docstrings.

[jmwright]

Other than my comment, this is ready to merge. Thanks @marcus7070

[adam-urbanczyk]

Merging, thanks @marcus7070 .