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
lots of files in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves are not included in the reference manual #4933
Comments
comment:1
Hi, the files
are not only enhanced in a vital way but also considerably cleaned up docstring- and comment-wise by #4667. The patch there is currently based against 3.3 and needs a rebase concerning two files (ell_rational_field.py, padocs.py) against 3.4 series, and there is still one doctest failure, but nevertheless I do consider #4667 worth of applying before working on this very ticket here! |
comment:2
Better luck in 3.4.1. Cheers, Michael |
Attachment: trac_4933-1.patch.gz |
comment:3
I have attached a patch trac_4933-1.patch which does this for three files:
The patch rewrites all the docstrings in those files and also adds them to the list of files which are processed by "sage -docbuild reference" so that they show up in the reference manual. To review/test the patch (which was based on 3.4.1.rc2), you need to apply it and rebuild, and then (1) do "sage -t" is usual on the files affected, and (2) do "sage -docbuild reference pdf/html/whatever" to check that the documentation looks good. |
Attachment: trac_4933-2.patch.gz Two more; apply after previous. |
comment:4
The second patch adds a couple more files (weierstrass_morphism and period_lattice). |
Attachment: trac_4933-3.patch.gz IGNORE all previous patches. This is based on 3.4.1.rc3 |
comment:6
The patch trac_4933-3.patch converts the following to rest/sphinx and adds them to the reference manual:
Almost all the changes are in docstrings. To review this you'll have to build the docs (reference manual) and eyeball the output. NB I combined more than one earlier patch into one, but failed to get "sage -hg qfold" to work, so i nthe patch there are liable to be more than one chunk for each file. |
comment:7
If you're patching ell_rational_field, can you fix the doc string for mwrank? It looks pretty garbled to me, and I don't know what it's supposed to say... |
comment:8
Replying to @jhpalmieri:
It looks pretty clear to me, except perhaps where it explains the format of the options string. Perhaps we should just include the output of "sage -mwrank -h":
|
comment:9
Do you mean this part?
|
comment:10
Replying to @jhpalmieri:
Yes! |
Attachment: trac_4933-3-rebase.patch.gz Replaces previous; based on 3.4.1.rc3 + #5808 patch |
comment:11
The new patch (trac_4933-3-rebase.patch) replaces the earlier one as it applies cleanly to 3.4.1.rc3 + ref-warnings.patch from #5808. It also answers John Palmieri's request to make the docstring for mwrank() less confusing. I think the reason that this one is smaller is that the previous one applied several patches in succession to the same files, while this one does not. At least, I hope that is the reason. |
comment:12
Code looks good, all tests pass, the reference manual looks nice. I'm attaching a referee's patch with two very small changes. |
apply on top of the other patch |
comment:13
Attachment: 4933-ref.patch.gz Replying to @jhpalmieri:
Thanks John -- I am quite happy with your adjustments. |
comment:14
Merged trac_4933-3-rebase.patch and 4933-ref.patch in Sage 3.4.1.rc4. Cheers, Michael |
comment:15
This is continued in #5851. |
The following files have useful docstrings but are not included in the ref manual (judging from 3.2.3), all in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.
Component: documentation
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/4933
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: