-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
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
Update documentation cross references #327
Conversation
adjusted. These are accessible through ``getParameters()`` and yield a | ||
``Param`` object (see `Parameter handling <parameter_handling.html>`_) which can | ||
be manipulated. After changing parameters, one can use ``setParameters()`` to | ||
adjusted. These are accessible through :py:meth:`~.Algorithm.getParameters()` and yield a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this will not work since the above is pseudocode. Unfortunately, we are not wrapping DefaultParamHandler which is where these methods come from (not "Algorithm"). It is kind of a hidden (C++-only) base class.
Not sure what to do here @timosachsenberg
Co-authored-by: Julianus Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Co-authored-by: Julianus Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome, thanks. You can batch commit my suggestions.
got to "Files changed". Then for each comment, "Add to batch"
Co-authored-by: Julianus Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Co-authored-by: Julianus Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Co-authored-by: Julianus Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Co-authored-by: Julianus Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Co-authored-by: Julianus Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
affc0fc
to
63741f9
Compare
…-update # Conflicts: # docs/source/glossary.rst
docs/source/glossary.rst
Outdated
|
||
Mass | ||
Mass is a measure of the amount of matter that an object contains. In comparison to often used term weight, which is a measure of the force of gravity on that object. | ||
Octadecyl (C18) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
capitalization and inclusion of abbreviations actually looks like the least efficient choice for glossary terms.
@timosachsenberg @tjeerdijk See discussion in #331
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe like so: https://style.mla.org/formatting-a-glossary/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. But my main concern is not styling, but usage. If you capitalize the terms, you need to write :term:non-capitalize <Non-capitalize>
all the time. When in English you need the lower case 95% of the time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same goes for abbreviations. If you add "mass spectrometry (MS)" as a term you can neither use :term:mass spectrometry
nor :termMS
separately.
I want to balance the amount of terms in the glossary and the number of times you need to add an alternative text. Therefore we need rules.
By the way, you can have multiple terms for the same description. Not sure why you removed that idea.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
see #331 unfortunately no one has an opinion there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess with the term that was used in the :term: that triggered the pop up.
Of course you have to start your descriptions with "Mass spectrometry (MS) is ..." as I changed in my previous PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It doesn't look great in the glossary itself and from the formatting it also looks like it will always be registered as two separate terms https://pyopenms.readthedocs.io/en/latest/glossary.html?highlight=lcms#term-LC-MS.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally, I prefer it over many "see XYZ" entries. That's why I wanted to trigger a discussion with opinions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How does it look like in the popup. Seems like it is never referenced...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not many glossary terms are actually linked right now.
By the way, I am very sorry for ruining the PR a bit. But the changes in the codeblocks were necessary for blacken to run through. |
… cross-ref-update # Conflicts: # docs/source/ML_tutorial.rst # docs/source/chemistry.rst # docs/source/datastructures_id.rst # docs/source/datastructures_peak.rst # docs/source/glossary.rst # docs/source/id_by_mz.rst # docs/source/interactive_plots.rst # docs/source/massql.rst # docs/source/pandas_df_conversion.rst # docs/source/peptide_search.rst # docs/source/smoothing.rst # docs/source/spectrumalignment.rst
# Conflicts: # docs/source/aasequences.rst # docs/source/digestion.rst # docs/source/id_by_mz.rst
So, I was thinking about glossary terms a bit more yesterday. Ad since no one has any opinion, I am deciding that we do the glossary as follows: ABBR1
ABBR2
..
full term1
full term2
Full term (ABBR1 or also ABBR2, ...) is a foobar Then in the text: Talking about :term:`full term1` (:term:`ABBR1`) will help users.
In the rest of the text we will only call it :term:`ABBR1`. |
I'm not sure if we then would have to add definitions for all of them: |
Did you try? |
I don't know how, when I build it locally, the hover references do not work. |
See docs: https://sphinx-hoverxref.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development.html But I tried and read the docs is bugged.. |
Then I guess we don't have another choice right now but include only 1 term in the glossary and reference it with e.g. :term: |
No I vote for reordering with the abbreviations on the bottom and then always use the last term for referencing. |
… cross-ref-update # Conflicts: # docs/source/background.rst # docs/source/glossary.rst
But didn't your picture show, that the hover references won't be working then? |
If you link to any non-last terms, yes |
Why do you want to include the other terms before that then? |
For the future so we can switch, as soon as the bug is fixed. |
Ok, works for me. |
I think it is not too often that we have this case. So it should be fine. |
Are you doing the glossary separately? |
I would do it in a different PR now. I hanged it back to lowercase, but adding the term references would make this PR a bit too convoluted. |
I will merge but we should fix the terms ASAP. Many of them will not work anymore. |
Add cross references to the documentation. Additionally, we can also include terms or make a new PR for that.