DOC: small improvements to docs

isciences / exactextract

Fast and accurate raster zonal statistics

Apache License 2.0

260 stars 33 forks source link

DOC: small improvements to docs #150

Closed theroggy closed 2 months ago

theroggy commented 2 months ago

In python api docs of exact_extract:
- Add link to "Available operations" to description of parameter ops.
- Add link to the relevant section in the "Performance" to the description of parameter strategy.
Clarify descriptions of operation arguments default_value and default_weight: reference https://github.com/isciences/exactextract/issues/147#issuecomment-2310699532
In "index" page: change to exactextract being "accurate" description so it is applicable to more use cases.
In "Installation" page, add conda as installation option.
Set width : 100% on the table with all operations to rather have the description become multi-line on smaller screens than horizontal scrolbars appearing

codecov[bot] commented 2 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 91.03%. Comparing base (8bec482) to head (6e7e53a). Report is 11 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #150 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 91.02% 91.03% ======================================= Files 85 85 Lines 6398 6404 +6 Branches 627 628 +1 ======================================= + Hits 5824 5830 +6 Misses 542 542 Partials 32 32 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

dbaston commented 2 months ago

Thanks, these look like good changes to me. Do you intend to have it marked as "draft" ?

theroggy commented 2 months ago

Thanks, these look like good changes to me. Do you intend to have it marked as "draft" ?

Yes, I'm still reading the docs, so might encounter other small things

I also wasn't 100% sure about the syntax for the link to "Avalable operations", so wanted to verify when docs were built in this PR... and apparently there is something wrong: the link works in the standard API reference page but it doesn't in the autoapi generated one, probably because it is deeper in the directory tree there... Still need to look into that...

dbaston commented 2 months ago

Looks good now

theroggy commented 2 months ago

Looks good now

Indeed, now the link works in both situations...

dbaston commented 2 months ago

Thanks for the careful review and corrections!