[BUG] Fix TimeSince check of inconsistency between time_index and start

[KishManani]

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

There is a check that the type of the time index and the start argument are consistent. The check was still being done on X.index which is fine for series data, but not for panel or hierarchical data. The check has been changed to the time_index variable.

PR checklist

For all contributions

• I've added unit tests and made sure they pass locally.
• The PR title starts with either [ENH], [MNT], [DOC], or [BUG] indicating whether the PR topic is related to enhancement, maintenance, documentation, or bug.

[fkiraly]

Good catch!

[aiwalter]

@KishManani as you are on it, can you kindly fix the Examples section, its not rendering well:
https://www.sktime.org/en/latest/api_reference/auto_generated/sktime.transformations.series.time_since.TimeSince.html?highlight=TimeSince

The comments basically have to be indented

[KishManani]

Thanks for spotting that @aiwalter! I've made the change to the examples. But the parameters also don't look like they're rendering how they should.

I checked out the docs on documentation and the examples of good documentation. I can't see an example with a bullet pointed list in the parameters section. If you know of any examples or how I should change the docstring so that the parameters section renders correctly please let me know!

Making the docs locally by running make html takes a very long time. Do you know if there is a quicker way for me to check if my docstrings are being rendered correctly? Thank you!

[aiwalter]

You can check Imputer. The CI/CD has a build of the PR docs. You can click on it once passed

[fkiraly]

I checked out the docs on documentation and the examples of good documentation. I can't see an example with a bullet pointed list in the parameters section.

Then there should be one - let's open an issue for someone to link one (and perhaps add explanation what can be learnt from the examples on the documentation page).

Might be best if you do this, @KishManani, since you know best what you were looking for and didn't find, so you can best specify what the documentation page should have done/explained?

[KishManani]

Might be best if you do this, @KishManani, since you know best what you were looking for and didn't find, so you can best specify what the documentation page should have done/explained?

Sure! Will do.

[KishManani]

You can check Imputer. The CI/CD has a build of the PR docs. You can click on it once passed

Thanks @aiwalter, this is very handy indeed! Do you happen to know of a faster workflow? It can take up to 5 minutes or longer for this to run. The workflow for me is currently like the following: 1) look at documentation and spot errors, 2) take a guess as to whether I need to change indentation or some other fix, 3) render the docs and check if the fix worked. I was wondering if you know of a quicker way to do step 3) 😅 ?

For some reason the formatting is not consistent in my list in the parameters section. For some reason "time-like" is bolded.

Any suggestions?

[fkiraly]

Any suggestions?

Get an exorcist

[fkiraly]

Good for me.

I'd say, the doc formatting issue is different scope and hence a different PR.
Let's merge this so there isn't too much conflict with PR #4018