Closed Dioprz closed 1 month ago
@Javierverbel Thank you so much for fixing the Sonarcloud warning 💯 .
only small comments, mainly about the citations and if the html doc generation still works
Thank you for the careful review, @FloydZ.
Some things that are worth explaining:
Sage uses reStructuredText-based docstrings, while Google-style docstrings don't (at least by default). This implies that:
[XXXX]
is present and modify them as needed.Regarding the more serious errors like removing citations or creating new reference sections with incorrect information, these were the result of a very experimental prompt and workflow process on my side. Because I concentrated so much on not creating or modifying values for the Examples:
or Tests:
sections, I completely forgot to refine the process for the other sections of the docstrings.
Once I sent this PR, I immediately improved the prompt used as well as my workflow process with the learnings made. Now I can inspect and review more carefully what is being generated by AI, so these errors shouldn't be present in subsequent PRs.
With that said, I left a 👍🏻 in every comment I applied, and a 👀 in those that requires feedback or consideration based on this explanation. Resolve those that you think are good now, and ping me to address any others that are missing please.
Alright. Digging more in the Napoleon extension for Sphinx, I found that:
_
. I will apply the changes.monospaced font
rendering. But looking at the Sphinx documentation on the topic, single backtick usage is context-dependant. What do you think we should do with that then? (EDIT: Precisely what I'm asking for is: what we should do with references to, for example: function arguments references, short math formulas, etc?)Nice to hear your thoughts too: @Memphisd @Javierverbel
EDIT: I'm not able to generate the docs to make tests, because some MAYO-related errors arise
All the actionable comments were applied in 96c10fe. My last question in the previous comment shouldn't be a blocker in case we want to merge this now; but I'm also open to new comments.
Please don't review #178 and #179 until I have implemented the same changes as here. I will ping you all when those are done.
I looks good to me @Dioprz . The let's MAYO-related
in the next PR docstring update, Maybe in #178
Issues
24 New issues
0 Accepted issues
Measures
0 Security Hotspots
68.0% Coverage on New Code
0.1% Duplication on New Code
Description
Implementation of https://github.com/Crypto-TII/CryptographicEstimators/pull/169 for SDEstimator.
Formatting changes were made by Black.
Review process
Estimator-specific doctests
Cumulative test (with all the already migrated docstrings)
Pre-approval checklist