390 sphinx alternatives

[jwestw]

Pull Request submission

Things to check:

• The appearance of our new mkdocs generated pages - please note the cool new favicon!
• The contents of the gh-pages branch
• The files changed especially mkdocs.yml and .github/workflows/pages.yml

Note: our technical documentation has gone, but this will be addressed in #397

Closes or fixes

Fixes #390 Closes #404 (this is an ironic issue number!!!!)

Code

There weren't many explicit requirements in #390 or #404 but I think what's implied is done.

• [x] Requirements My/our code matches the requirements of the ticket Functionality: New functions meet requirements in issue ticket N/A
• [x] Compliant Code Code is as PEP 8 compliant as I can humanly make it
• [x] Code runs The code runs on my machine on the Github action runners
• [x] Clean Code
  • [x] Code has been linted (use your favourite linter)
  • [x] Code adheres to DRY

Documentation

Any new code includes all the following forms of documentation:

~~Function Documentation Docstrings within the function(s') definition(s) have been created Includes parameters and returns for all major functions Includes data types~~

• [x] Updated Documentation: Working doc has been updated and a new ticket to update the master documentation has been created.

---

Peer Review Section

• [ ] All requirements install from (updated) requirements.txt
• [ ] Documentation has been created and is clear - check the google Doc
• [ ] Doctrings (Google format) have been created and accurately describe the function's functionality
• [ ] Unit tests pass, or if not present a new ticket to create tests has been created
• [ ] Code runs The code runs on reviewer's machine

Final approval (post-review)

The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction.

• [ ] I recommend merging this request.

---

Review comments

Insert detailed comments here!

These might include, but not exclusively:

• bugs that need fixing (does it work as expected? and does it work with other code that it is likely to interact with?)
• alternative methods (could it be written more efficiently or with more clarity?)
• documentation improvements (does the documentation reflect how the code actually works?)
• additional tests that should be implemented (do the tests effectively assure that it works correctly?)
• code style improvements (could the code be written more clearly?)

Your suggestions should be tailored to the code that you are reviewing. Be critical and clear, but not mean. Ask questions and set actions.