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

docs: illustrate example without expertsystem #232

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 17, 2021
Merged

Conversation

redeboer
Copy link
Member

@redeboer redeboer commented Mar 17, 2021

Added a new page usage/basics that shows how to generate data for 1D and 2D expressions without using the expertsystem. This illustrates what happens behind the scenes in tensorwaves.

@redeboer redeboer added the 📝 Docs Improvements or additions to documentation label Mar 17, 2021
@redeboer redeboer requested a review from spflueger March 17, 2021 11:53
@redeboer redeboer self-assigned this Mar 17, 2021
@redeboer
Copy link
Member Author

@spflueger Have a look at the phrasing to see if you agree. I think this notebook also helps to rethink the design and naming (particularly in the data module).

@redeboer redeboer added this to the Release 0.2.1 milestone Mar 17, 2021
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 17, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #232 (ca36e86) into master (06df51a) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #232   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.65%   81.65%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines         507      507           
  Branches       64       64           
=======================================
  Hits          414      414           
  Misses         71       71           
  Partials       22       22           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 81.65% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Copy link
Member

@spflueger spflueger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nicely done. I have a few comments on some wordings and things that should be pointed out. Approved it already though

docs/usage.ipynb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/usage/basics.ipynb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/usage/basics.ipynb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/usage/basics.ipynb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/usage/basics.ipynb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/usage/basics.ipynb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@redeboer
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the comments @spflueger, I addressed them in ca36e86

@redeboer redeboer merged commit 932c870 into master Mar 17, 2021
@redeboer redeboer deleted the custom-function branch March 17, 2021 20:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
📝 Docs Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants