Fixing documentation build

[isaacgsmith]

Description

Adjusts custom packet source notebook to reflect code change.

Motivation and context

Merge of #1592 created a problem that stopped the documentation from building.

How has this been tested?

• Testing pipeline.
• Other.
  Docs built locally and on github.

Examples

Successful build can be seen here.

Type of change

• Bug fix.
• New feature.
• Breaking change.
• None of the above.

Checklist

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • (optional) I have built the documentation on my fork following the instructions.
• I have assigned and requested two reviewers for this pull request.

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1601 (98fcbb3) into master (c25ea7e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 98fcbb3 differs from pull request most recent head 9f2df30. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9f2df30 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1601   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.20%   67.20%           
=======================================
  Files          73       73           
  Lines        6150     6150           
=======================================
  Hits         4133     4133           
  Misses       2017     2017           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c25ea7e...9f2df30. Read the comment docs.

[github-actions]

Before a PR is accepted, it must meet the following criteria:

• Is the necessary information provided?
  • Does the PR have a complete description? Does it explain what the PR is attempting to do/fix, does it explain how it does this?
  • Is there an explanation of why this PR is needed?
  • Please use the TARDIS PR template
• Is this a duplicate PR?
  • If a new PR is clearly a duplicate, ask how this PR is different from the original PR?
  • If this PR is about to be merged, close the original PR with a link to this new PR that solved the issue.
• Does it pass existing tests and are new tests provided if required?
  • The test coverage should not decrease, and for new features should be at or very close to 100%.
• Is the code properly documented?
  • If this modifies existing code, then the docs should be updated. If this adds a new feature, additional documentation should be created.
  • Sphinx and docstrings in the code (in numpydoc format)
• Does this conform to PEP 8 and the TARDIS style guidelines?
• Does the PR fix the problem it describes?
  • Make sure it doesn’t e.g. just fix the problem for a specific case
  • Is this the best way of fixing the problem?
• Is the code tidy?
  • No unnecessary print lines or code comments