Skip to content

[MRG] DOC: Fix the space between attributes in docs #3822

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 3, 2020

Conversation

tirthasheshpatel
Copy link
Contributor

I think sphinx doesn't allow a space between attributes and their description. I have tried to run a simple shell script to fix the issue.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 3, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #3822 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3822      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.77%   90.76%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         133      133              
  Lines       20566    20566              
==========================================
- Hits        18669    18667       -2     
- Misses       1897     1899       +2
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pymc3/step_methods/elliptical_slice.py 95.12% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pymc3/distributions/dist_math.py 91.5% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pymc3/distributions/multivariate.py 78.93% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pymc3/tests/test_variational_inference.py 97.77% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pymc3/data.py 79.76% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pymc3/gp/cov.py 98.1% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pymc3/step_methods/slicer.py 95.45% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pymc3/model.py 89.26% <ø> (-0.13%) ⬇️
pymc3/variational/operators.py 92.68% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pymc3/step_methods/hmc/base_hmc.py 95.32% <ø> (-0.94%) ⬇️
... and 45 more

Copy link
Contributor

@rpgoldman rpgoldman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you very much for doing this. This has been on my to do list for ages.

@tirthasheshpatel
Copy link
Contributor Author

You are welcome @rpgoldman :)

Copy link
Member

@ColCarroll ColCarroll left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

very nice. couldn't believe a "simple shell script" wouldn't hit more false positives.



def close_to_logical(x, v, bound, name="value"):
assert np.all(np.logical_or(
np.abs(np.bitwise_xor(x, v)) < bound,
x == v)), name + " out of bounds : " + repr(x) + ", " + repr(v) + ", " + repr(bound)
x == v)), name + " out of bounds: " + repr(x) + ", " + repr(v) + ", " + repr(bound)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks unintentional here, but fine to me

@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ def aevb_initial():
(NormalizingFlowGroup, {'flow': 'radial'}),
(NormalizingFlowGroup, {'flow': 'radial-loc'})
],
ids=lambda t: '{c} : {d}'.format(c=t[0].__name__, d=t[1])
ids=lambda t: '{c}: {d}'.format(c=t[0].__name__, d=t[1])
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks unintentional here, but fine to me

@@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ def posterior_to_trace(self):
size = 0
for var in varnames:
shape, new_size = self.var_info[var]
value.append(self.posterior[i][size : size + new_size].reshape(shape))
value.append(self.posterior[i][size: size + new_size].reshape(shape))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks unintentional here, but fine to me

@@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ def posterior_to_function(self, posterior):
size = 0
for var in self.variables:
shape, new_size = var_info[var.name]
varvalues.append(posterior[size : size + new_size].reshape(shape))
varvalues.append(posterior[size: size + new_size].reshape(shape))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks unintentional here, but fine to me

@ColCarroll ColCarroll merged commit 54c6d06 into pymc-devs:master Mar 3, 2020
@tirthasheshpatel tirthasheshpatel deleted the fix-sphinx branch March 3, 2020 16:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants