#9976: Decorated functions/methods have generic signature in documentation
-----------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Reporter: jsrn | Owner: jsrn
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.7
Component: documentation | Keywords: sphinx,
documentation, cython inspection
Author: jsrn, Simon King | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Simon King | Merged:
Work_issues: Cosmetical changes, indirect doctests |
-----------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Comment(by SimonKing):
Replying to [comment:118 jsrn]:
> {{{
> /home/jsrn/sage-dev/local/lib/python2.6/site-
packages/sage/categories/category_types.py:docstring of
sage.categories.category_types:2: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation.
> <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation.
Mysterious indeed.
> /home/jsrn/sage-dev/local/lib/python2.6/site-
packages/sage/combinat/sf/jack.py:docstring of
sage.combinat.sf.jack.ZonalPolynomials:3: (WARNING/2) Literal block
expected; none found.
> ...
> /home/jsrn/sage-dev/devel/sagenb/sagenb/notebook/interact.py:docstring
of sagenb.notebook.interact.input_grid:28: (WARNING/2) Block quote ends
without a blank line; unexpected unindent.
That looks like the doc bugs that I squashed in my second patch.
However, I think the important question is: Do we get these warnings
without our patches? If we do then it would be ok to accept these
warnings. If we don't then it could also be that without our patches the
documentation was based on the wrong doc string (e.g., if a method is
wrapped by some decorator). But keep in mind that it is not the purpose of
this ticket to clean up all doc strings!
By the way, I slightly lost track: Did you provide indirect doctests for
your patch, exhibiting the way `_sage_argspec` is supposed to be used? It
would also be possible that I do, by a reviewer patch.
Concerning review: It seems that [http://groups.google.com/group/sage-
devel/browse_thread/thread/dd7de9c504c13164 sage-devel] gave us permission
that I review your patch and you review mine - provided that we honestly
think we are non-biased with respect to the other person's patch.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9976#comment:119>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
