👌 IMPROVE: Bug fix, latex support and some refactoring

[AakashGfude]

• [x] fixes https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-exercise/issues/32
• [x] latex support. fixes https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-exercise/issues/30
• [x] refactoring and removing redundant code

[welcome[bot]]

Thanks for submitting your first pull request! You are awesome! :hugs:
If you haven't done so already, check out EBP's Code of Conduct and our Contributing Guide, as this will greatly help the review process.
Welcome to the EBP community! :tada:

[mmcky]

thanks @AakashGfude let me know when you're done with this refactor etc. Then I can dive in and continue work on the gated directive idea to support code execution to propose to the EBP community.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #33 (ac348e7) into master (78bf69b) will decrease coverage by 7.59%. The diff coverage is 85.82%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #33      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.30%   88.71%   -7.60%     
==========================================
  Files           3        4       +1     
  Lines         325      381      +56     
==========================================
+ Hits          313      338      +25     
- Misses         12       43      +31     

Flag	Coverage Δ
pytests	88.71% <85.82%> (-7.60%)	:arrow_down:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
sphinx_exercise/utils.py	65.62% <65.62%> (ø)
sphinx_exercise/nodes.py	74.15% <74.15%> (ø)
sphinx_exercise/__init__.py	95.55% <96.69%> (+0.62%)	:arrow_up:
sphinx_exercise/directive.py	98.75% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	:arrow_up:

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 78bf69b...ac348e7. Read the comment docs.

[AakashGfude]

@mmcky This should be ready to go.

[AakashGfude]

@AakashGfude just going through these changes. I see a lot of changes to object names to make them less general. I think this makes the code a lot more readable 👍 but is there any tradeoff here?

Are these objects becoming less general and code becoming more duplicated or is there very little overlap.

An approach of less general was done, to prevent overwriting/interference from other extensions. For example, node names like enumerable_node, unenumerable_node were getting affected by other extensions. Have tried to reduce duplicity. Let me know if there's any particular instance that is catching your attention.

[mmcky]

@AakashGfude just going through these changes. I see a lot of changes to object names to make them less general. I think this makes the code a lot more readable 👍 but is there any tradeoff here? Are these objects becoming less general and code becoming more duplicated or is there very little overlap.

An approach of less general was done, to prevent overwriting/interference from other extensions. For example, node names like enumerable_node, unenumerable_node were getting affected by other extensions. Have tried to reduce duplicity. Let me know if there's any particular instance that is catching your attention.

thanks @AakashGfude mainly curious. They aren't large methods so looks good to me. After adding the documentation / comments -- please feel free to merge.

[AakashGfude]

thanks @AakashGfude mainly curious. They aren't large methods so looks good to me. After adding the documentation / comments -- please feel free to merge.

I will just merge this one now? So that you can experiment with that prototype. Will reiterate tomorrow, to add comments and any other improvements.

[welcome[bot]]

Congrats on your first merged pull request in this project! :tada:
Thank you for contributing, we are very proud of you! :heart: