Skip to content
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

Condensation pulled from next #1

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Condensation pulled from next #1

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

Gorkowski
Copy link

@Gorkowski Gorkowski commented May 31, 2024

I pulled the functions I had for particula.next with some edits to remove all defaults.

@Gorkowski
Copy link
Author

Gorkowski commented Jun 2, 2024

@ngmahfouz A few thoughts on docs and PRs based on the trim.

For the funticula development, I'm fine with one-line docs and no types etc. So, the focus is on how to implement the functional idea in code.

For the particula development:

  1. The use of one-line documentation deviates from the Google Style Guide.https://google.github.io/styleguide/pyguide.html#38-comments-and-docstrings.
  2. To streamline our workflow, I think a PR guide that includes separate PRs for code and documentation should be decided on. This would allow us to focus on the code with minimal documentation initially, followed by a subsequent PR that expands the documentation to fully comply with the style guide. This should shorten the code review process and simplify the documentation review to mainly proofreading.

@ngmahfouz
Copy link
Collaborator

@ngmahfouz A few thoughts on docs and PRs based on the trim.

For the funticula development, I'm fine with one-line docs and no types etc. So, the focus is on how to implement the functional idea in code.

For the particula development:

  1. The use of one-line documentation deviates from the Google Style Guide.https://google.github.io/styleguide/pyguide.html#38-comments-and-docstrings.
  2. To streamline our workflow, I think a PR guide that includes separate PRs for code and documentation should be decided on. This would allow us to focus on the code with minimal documentation initially, followed by a subsequent PR that expands the documentation to fully comply with the style guide. This should shorten the code review process and simplify the documentation review to mainly proofreading.

I agree. Additionally, we should designate an area of the verbose docs. Maybe the docstring atop the function? Comments near code should be minimal to guide the code reader along, not necessarily about the history, which I think you've been doing. I think we can skip the top-of-the-file comments unless necessary?

@ngmahfouz
Copy link
Collaborator

Doing docs in separate PRs is also a good idea!

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.

2 participants