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

Apidocs #2383

Closed
wants to merge 13 commits into from
Closed

Apidocs #2383

wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

takluyver
Copy link
Member

Not ready for merge.

This is something we discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago - should we move from fully auto-generated API docs to something a bit more manual, forcing us to be clearer about what is the public API?

I made a start towards that, but I wanted to check what we think of the idea and the details before I spend more time on it. I used the auto-generated API docs with some modifications:

  • Rearranged into a hierarchical structure matching the package structure (core/history.txt rather than IPython.core.history.txt)
  • Simplifying subheadings
  • Not describing local utility functions and classes (like Bunch).
  • Removing inheritance diagrams except where they're interesting (e.g. that for ultratb is interesting)
  • Removing the :inherited-members: option from autoclass documentation (classes that derive from Configurable, for example, inherit a lot of confusing methods)
  • Removing the .. automethod:: __init__ documentation where __init__ doesn't have a docstring.

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
.. AUTO-GENERATED FILE -- DO NOT EDIT!
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did you mean to remove this comment?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, thanks. I must have missed this one.

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request fails (merged fda39e2 into c678a87).

[(-8, 5, None), (-7, 1, 4), (0, 2, 3)]
Example::

>>> list(extract_input_ranges("~8/5-~7/4 2"))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now that this is getting tested, it'll have to be extract_hist_ranges (instead of extract_input_ranges).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, that should be fixed in the next commit.

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request fails (merged 63dc154 into c678a87).

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request fails (merged ca3de81 into c678a87).

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request passes (merged 381d567 into c678a87).

@fperez
Copy link
Member

fperez commented Sep 13, 2012

I think in the long run, this is necessary. Our current setup is a bit too chaotic and leaves users with an incomprehensible impact surface for what IPython is as a library.

Given that I don't think the current autogen docs are very good as they are, I'm totally +1 on moving forward with this, even if it takes a while to get it where we'd be completely happy.

@ellisonbg
Copy link
Member

This is important, but should be close the PR and open an issue to track this (> 2 months inactivity)?

@takluyver
Copy link
Member Author

Yes, if you'd prefer. I'm not convinced that this is the right approach - it's a lot of work to do this, as evidenced by the fact that I didn't even finish the docs for IPython.core. But I do think we need to improve our API docs, and work out what parts we really consider the API, and what is implementation details.

@takluyver takluyver mentioned this pull request Nov 24, 2012
@Carreau
Copy link
Member

Carreau commented Dec 4, 2012

@takluyver Was #2616 a replacement of this one ? can it be closed ?

@takluyver
Copy link
Member Author

Yes, good point.

@takluyver takluyver closed this Dec 4, 2012
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants