Detection of duplicates in API reference, some to remove #277
Conversation
sadielbartholomew
added
documentation
|
Hi Sadie - thanks for this. I reckon that we could keep |
Sounds good to me. I'll update the PR shortly to get the duplicates other than those removed, in the least appropriate location. |
|
@davidhassell I have now updated the PR to remove the majority of the rest of the duplicates, so that the output of the script is: $ ./check_docs_api_coverage
WARNING: some methods are listed multiple times inside one class file/page. Decide if the duplicates are intended and if not remove them. They are:
cfdm.Data.sum
cfdm.Data.unique
All non-private methods are documentedin line with your idea to leave just those two under So this should be ready for re-review. Thanks. |
| # so we must account for that. Checking next character | ||
| # of duplicate(s) is something other than a newline or | ||
| # whitespace, seems robust and simplest. | ||
| end_loc = [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I presume I'm missing something here, but count doesn't count partial matches, so why is this needed?
>>> a = ['abc', 'abcd', 'abcde']
>>> a.count('abc')
1There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's needed because what's being done is count from one larger string, being the string read from the full file, rather than a list of sub-strings as per your example, in which case we have as an equivalent:
>>> a = "abc abcd abcde"
>>> a.count("abc")
3There was a problem hiding this comment.
Regardless, if you can think of a more elegant way to go about the logic I've added, I am happy to hear. I might be able to think of an alternative myself if I mull over it, but since it's a convenience script for automating checks I am satisfied as long as it works and isn't (too) slow 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All good - thanks for the explanation
Took a slight tangent from my reviewing of #272 when considering API reference coverage and spotting there are some methods listed multiple times in the same file or even under the same sub-heading.
I thought I'd make a small update to the
check_docs_api_coveragescript so we can automate the detection of those when we are already checking that they are all present. So with this change we are checking they are all present precisely once and not just not zero times like before (sub-string method name complications are dealt with - see code comments), unless we've deliberately chosen to duplicate them under different headings. A warning is raised reporting any duplicates for consideration.I've removed any duplication that seems unintended in the API reference source restructured text, thought left in some cases where it looks like we might want to put methods under multiple headings. Namely, at PR opening the script still reports these which I haven't touched:
as opposed to, previously, a longer list:
Happy to remove those duplicates from the first snippet too, though? But the main thing is the automation of the check and that I've removed methods duplicated under the same heading, which can be blitzed to tidy.