Closed Slowblitz closed 3 years ago
Hello @Slowblitz! Thanks for updating this PR.
There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! :beers:
Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
ando/tests/test_AnDOChecker.py | 2 | 98.15% | ||
ando/AnDOChecker.py | 12 | 71.79% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 14 | --> |
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 679700768: | 8.1% |
Covered Lines: | 195 |
Relevant Lines: | 486 |
Hi @SylvainTakerkart can you check the content of introduction in the docs/source/ando.rst
file it needs to be updated, and also can you give us to @JuliaSprenger or me the admin right that we can do the configuration on read the doc pls .
Hi @SylvainTakerkart can you check the content of introduction in the
docs/source/ando.rst
file it needs to be updated, and also can you give us to @JuliaSprenger or me the admin right that we can do the configuration on read the doc pls .
I've upgraded both of you from Maintainer to Administrator of the AnDO project... I'm now gonna check the content of the ando.rst file ;)
Just pushed an update of index.rst ... I completily changed its content... I'm not sure whether it's worth adding other things... We could also wonder whether it's really worth having a readthedoc site... WDYT?
We should probably discuss before moving further...
I think it would still be good to have version controlled documentation of the AnDO package out there, as we discussed a couple of weeks ago. This way we can keep the documentation / specifications of AnDO linked to specific versions of the code and still have all of them accessible via the different doc versions on readthedocs. Also having a reduced more user friendly version of the specifications as developed on docs.google could help not scaring potential users by the complexity of the complete documentation.
Also It's maybe a good idea to have it , for the INCF talk .
ok, fair points ;)
so, what we need, besides the intro is:
anything else? WDYT?
Hi @Slowblitz ! The image you just uploaded contains several errors with respect to the specs:
Also, I would put real names from a real dataset! Can you take a look at https://gin.g-node.org/sprenger/multielectrode_grasp/src/bep_animalephys? this is our example dataset! (but some files at the root directory are forbidden there... just keep the sub-XX directories!). To make sure your example on the image is ok, you can create it on disk and run the AnDOChecker on it ;)
@Slowblitz can you add the link to the latest compilation of the docs here, so it is easier to compare the code changes to the output?
Here's the link https://ando.readthedocs.io/en/enh-read_the_doc/
Hi @Slowblitz ! For the image: could you put all the files at the top of the image, and the two directories sub-i ad sub-l at the bottom? that will make the image more readable I think!
Other than this, it looks good! I'll just make some small final adjustments to the text later (or more probably tuesday morning)...
Thanks ;)
So I manage to sort it, but the other way around so WDYT?
So I manage to sort it, but the other way around so WDYT?
the last version you pushed looks perfect ;)
Hi @JuliaSprenger @Slowblitz . Can you both proofread before I merge? https://ando.readthedocs.io/en/enh-read_the_doc/ (you probably need to refresh or else the changes don't show up...)
(and yes, @Slowblitz , I finished my sentence ;) )
@Slowblitz oooops, no, there's a mistage on the image: the sub-XX_sessions files (tsv and json) should be in the sub-XX directory, not in the ses-YY directory (they describe the different sessions, so they cannot be inside a specific session directory)... can you please update the image?
@SylvainTakerkart like this :
@SylvainTakerkart like this :
yep!
do you have this dataset on disk? just run the AnDOChecker to validate ;) ; and then commit and I'll merge!
@SylvainTakerkart so the data set does not validate , so let me correct it and push it after
@SylvainTakerkart @JuliaSprenger WDYT ?
@SylvainTakerkart @JuliaSprenger WDYT ?
what's the difference with the previous one (I don't see it, hehe :dark_sunglasses: )? what was the reason from the non-validation?
@SylvainTakerkart @JuliaSprenger WDYT ?
what's the difference with the previous one (I don't see it, hehe dark_sunglasses )? what was the reason from the non-validation?
ps: at this point, I don't think anymore, coz it looks good and it is easily readable!!! so if you tell me it's validated, it's good to go ;)
@SylvainTakerkart so there were no "_ephys" at the end of the data file, and the structured rules did not include the 'task' and 'run' options for data file see #78 I've fixed it I will push it after merging the doc
Nice, the first version is merged! @Slowblitz So the next step is setting up the readthedocs page and the correct triggers of the doc build.
This is the new documentation for read the doc