update doctests in statute guide

authorityspoke/evidence.py

@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ def __str__(self):
             + f'{("asserting " + self.statement.short_string + ", ") if self.statement else ""}'
         )
         string = super().__str__().format(string)
-        return string.replace("exhibit", self.form or "exhibit").strip().strip(",")
+        return string.replace("exhibit", self.form or "exhibit").strip()
 
     @property
     def wrapped_string(self):
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ class Evidence(Factor):
 
     def __str__(self):
         string = (
-            f'{("of " + self.exhibit.short_string + ", ") if self.exhibit else ""}'
+            f'{("of " + self.exhibit.short_string + " ") if self.exhibit else ""}'
             + f'{("which supports " + self.to_effect.short_string) if self.to_effect else ""}'
         )
         return super().__str__().format(string).strip().replace("Evidence", "evidence")

docs/guides/example_holdings.rst

@@ -27,6 +27,12 @@ The text delivered by the
 collected from print sources, so it will contain some Optical
 Character Recognition errors.
 
+    >>> from authorityspoke.io.loaders import load_decision
+    >>> from authorityspoke.io.readers import read_decision
+    >>> oracle_download = load_decision("oracle_h.json")
+    >>> lotus_download = load_decision("lotus_h.json")
+    >>> oracle = read_decision(oracle_download)
+    >>> lotus = read_decision(lotus_download)
 
 *Lotus v. Borland* 49 F.3d 807 (1995)
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

docs/guides/load_yaml_holdings.rst

@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ documentation <https://saurabh-kumar.com/python-dotenv/#getting-started>`__.
     >>> import os
     >>> from dotenv import load_dotenv
     >>> load_dotenv()
+    True
     >>> CAP_API_KEY = os.getenv('CAP_API_KEY')
 
 Next, we'll create a :class:`~authorityspoke.io.downloads.CAPClient` object,
@@ -58,7 +59,7 @@ citation of the case we want, we'll use the :meth:`~authorityspoke.io.downloads.
 Because we used ``full_case=True``, we have the option to view the full
 text of the majority opinion using the command
 ``licensing_case.majority.text``.
-    
+
 
 Creating Holdings with Python
 -----------------------------
@@ -216,9 +217,9 @@ Factors and Entities in AuthoritySpoke YAML
 The fields ``inputs``, ``outputs``, and ``despite`` should each contain
 a list of :class:`~nettlesome.factors.Factor`\s. (If any of them is an empty list with no Factors,
 then it can be omitted.) A :class:`~nettlesome.factors.Factor` can be any of several ``type``\ s,
-including :class:`~authorityspoke.facts.Fact`\, :class:`~authorityspoke.evidence.Evidence`\, 
+including :class:`~authorityspoke.facts.Fact`\, :class:`~authorityspoke.evidence.Evidence`\,
 :class:`~authorityspoke.evidence.Exhibit`\, :class:`~authorityspoke.pleadings.Pleading`\, or
-:class:`~authorityspoke.pleadings.Allegation`\. Let's add one :class:`~nettlesome.factors.Factor` 
+:class:`~authorityspoke.pleadings.Allegation`\. Let's add one :class:`~nettlesome.factors.Factor`
 to the ``inputs`` field of the first :class:`~authorityspoke.holdings.Holding`\.
 
 ::
@@ -236,12 +237,12 @@ factor is being displayed visually as an annotation to the opinion). In
 this case, we simply copied the full text of the phrase from the :class:`~authorityspoke.opinions.Opinion`
 where the anchor should be
 placed. However, as we'll see later, we also could have used the
-:class:`~anchorpoint.textselectors.TextQuoteSelector` syntax from 
+:class:`~anchorpoint.textselectors.TextQuoteSelector` syntax from
 the `anchorpoint <https://anchorpoint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>`__ package.
 
 The pairs of curly brackets in the "content" field above also have
 special meaning. A bracketed phrase in a ``content`` field identifies an
-:class:`~authorityspoke.entities.Entity`\. Typically 
+:class:`~authorityspoke.entities.Entity`\. Typically
 an ``Entity`` is a person or party, but important
 objects or concepts can also be labelled as class ``Entity``. If you
 identify a phrase as an ``Entity`` by putting brackets around it, the
@@ -494,12 +495,12 @@ Assigning Names to Factors and Enactments in YAML
 -------------------------------------------------
 
 The YAML data input format is still verbose, but there's one more
-feature we can use to shorten it. If a :class:`~nettlesome.factors.Factor` 
+feature we can use to shorten it. If a :class:`~nettlesome.factors.Factor`
 or :class:`~legislice.enactments.Enactment` is going to
 be used more than once in the same file, we can add a ``name`` field to
 the YAML for that object. Then, anytime the same object needs to be
 reused, we can just repeat the object's ``name`` rather than rewriting the
-whole object. 
+whole object.
 
 .. warning::
     Similar to the names of Entities as discussed above, any
@@ -576,10 +577,10 @@ Now when we load a file with this YAML, we'll get both Holdings.
     >>> len(both_holdings_with_anchors.holdings)
     2
 
-Now that we generated this :class:`~authorityspoke.opinions.AnchoredHoldings` object 
-containing the data from the YAML file, we can use the posit method to link those 
-:class:`~authorityspoke.holdings.Holding`\s to the judicial :class:`~authorityspoke.decisions.Decision` 
-we created from the data we downloaded from the CAP API. Then we can verify that 
+Now that we generated this :class:`~authorityspoke.opinions.AnchoredHoldings` object
+containing the data from the YAML file, we can use the posit method to link those
+:class:`~authorityspoke.holdings.Holding`\s to the judicial :class:`~authorityspoke.decisions.Decision`
+we created from the data we downloaded from the CAP API. Then we can verify that
 those two Holdings are now considered the two holdings of the Decision.
 
     >>> licensing_case.posit(both_holdings_with_anchors)

docs/guides/statute_rules.rst

@@ -54,20 +54,24 @@ Python instead of loading them from a JSON file. For details, see the
 manual <https://authorityspoke.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>`__. Here’s an
 example of one JSON rule annotation.
 
+    >>> from pprint import pprint
     >>> from authorityspoke.io import loaders
     >>> beard_dictionary = loaders.load_holdings("beard_rules.json")
-    >>> beard_dictionary[0]
+    >>> pprint(beard_dictionary[0], sort_dicts=False)
     {'inputs': [{'type': 'fact',
-       'content': '{the suspected beard} was facial hair'},
-      {'type': 'fact',
-       'content': 'the length of the suspected beard was >= 5 millimetres'},
-      {'type': 'fact',
-       'content': 'the suspected beard occurred on or below the chin'}],
+                 'content': '{the suspected beard} was facial hair'},
+                {'type': 'fact',
+                 'content': 'the length of the suspected beard was >= 5 '
+                            'millimetres'},
+                {'type': 'fact',
+                 'content': 'the suspected beard occurred on or below the chin'}],
      'outputs': [{'type': 'fact',
-       'content': 'the suspected beard was a beard',
-       'name': 'the fact that the facial hair was a beard'}],
+                  'content': 'the suspected beard was a beard',
+                  'name': 'the fact that the facial hair was a beard'}],
      'enactments': [{'node': '/test/acts/47/4',
-       'exact': 'In this Act, beard means any facial hair no shorter than 5 millimetres in length that: occurs on or below the chin'}],
+                     'exact': 'In this Act, beard means any facial hair no shorter '
+                              'than 5 millimetres in length that: occurs on or '
+                              'below the chin'}],
      'universal': True}
 
 
@@ -86,29 +90,28 @@ describe two ways that an object can be defined to be a “beard”.
     >>> print(beard_rules[0])
     the Rule that the court MAY ALWAYS impose the
       RESULT:
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> was a beard
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> was a beard
       GIVEN:
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> was facial hair
-        the Fact that the length of <the suspected beard> was at least 5
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> was facial hair
+        the fact that the length of <the suspected beard> was at least 5
         millimeter
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> occurred on or below the chin
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> occurred on or below the chin
       GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
         "In this Act, beard means any facial hair no shorter than 5 millimetres in length that: occurs on or below the chin…" (/test/acts/47/4 1935-04-01)
 
 
     >>> print(beard_rules[1])
     the Rule that the court MAY ALWAYS impose the
       RESULT:
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> was a beard
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> was a beard
       GIVEN:
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> was facial hair
-        the Fact that the length of <the suspected beard> was at least 5
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> was facial hair
+        the fact that the length of <the suspected beard> was at least 5
         millimeter
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> existed in an uninterrupted line
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> existed in an uninterrupted line
         from the front of one ear to the front of the other ear below the nose
-      GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
+      GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
         "In this Act, beard means any facial hair no shorter than 5 millimetres in length that:…exists in an uninterrupted line from the front of one ear to the front of the other ear below the nose." (/test/acts/47/4 1935-04-01)
-        "exists in an uninterrupted line from the front of one ear to the front of the other ear below the nose." (/test/acts/47/4/b 1935-04-01)
 
 
 The difference between these two Rules is that the first one applies to
@@ -139,12 +142,12 @@ we can determine that the original “chin rule” implies our new Rule.
     >>> print(longer_hair_rule)
     the Rule that the court MAY ALWAYS impose the
       RESULT:
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> was a beard
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> was a beard
       GIVEN:
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> was facial hair
-        the Fact that the length of <the suspected beard> was exactly equal to
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> was facial hair
+        the fact that the length of <the suspected beard> was exactly equal to
         8 millimeter
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> occurred on or below the chin
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> occurred on or below the chin
       GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
         "In this Act, beard means any facial hair no shorter than 5 millimetres in length that: occurs on or below the chin…" (/test/acts/47/4 1935-04-01)
 
@@ -161,27 +164,26 @@ library). And we can show that this new Rule contradicts a Rule that
 came from the Beard Tax Act.
 
     >>> beard_dictionary[1]["despite"] = [
-    >>>   beard_dictionary[1]["inputs"][0],
-    >>>   beard_dictionary[1]["inputs"][2],
-    >>>  ]
+    ...     beard_dictionary[1]["inputs"][0],
+    ...     beard_dictionary[1]["inputs"][2]]
     >>> beard_dictionary[1]["inputs"] = {
-        "type": "fact",
-        "content": "the length of the suspected beard was >= 12 inches",
-    }
+    ...    "type": "fact",
+    ...    "content": "the length of the suspected beard was >= 12 inches"}
     >>> beard_dictionary[1]["outputs"][0]["truth"] = False
     >>> beard_dictionary[1]["mandatory"] = True
     >>> long_means_not_beard = readers.read_rule(beard_dictionary[1], client=legis_client)
     >>> print(long_means_not_beard)
     the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
       RESULT:
-        the Fact it is false that <the suspected beard> was a beard
+        the fact it was false that <the suspected beard> was a beard
       GIVEN:
-        the Fact that the length of <the suspected beard> was at least 12 inch
+        the fact that the length of <the suspected beard> was at least 12 inch
       DESPITE:
-        the Fact that <the suspected beard> was facial hair
-      GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> was facial hair
+        the fact that <the suspected beard> existed in an uninterrupted line
+        from the front of one ear to the front of the other ear below the nose
+      GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
         "In this Act, beard means any facial hair no shorter than 5 millimetres in length that:…exists in an uninterrupted line from the front of one ear to the front of the other ear below the nose." (/test/acts/47/4 1935-04-01)
-        "exists in an uninterrupted line from the front of one ear to the front of the other ear below the nose." (/test/acts/47/4/b 1935-04-01)
 
 
 
@@ -234,7 +236,7 @@ Here are the two Rules we’ll be adding together.
         the Fact it is false that <the counterparty> was <the Department of
         Beards>
       DESPITE:
-        the Fact that the token attributed to <the Department of Beards>,
+        the fact that the token attributed to <the Department of Beards>,
         asserting the fact that <the Department of Beards> granted an
         exemption from the prohibition of wearing beards, was counterfeit
       GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:

tests/test_exhibits.py

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ def test_exhibit_short_string(self, make_exhibit):
             make_exhibit["no_shooting_testimony"].short_string.lower()
             == (
                 "the testimony attributed to <Alice>, asserting "
-                "the fact it was false that <Alice> shot <Bob>"
+                "the fact it was false that <Alice> shot <Bob>,"
             ).lower()
         )