Locate nearest clusters for given data

[pulquero]

Fixes #208.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #214 (bf9d55e) into master (56dbd66) will increase coverage by 0.19%. The diff coverage is 86.04%.

:exclamation: Current head bf9d55e differs from pull request most recent head 0bd7b00. Consider uploading reports for the commit 0bd7b00 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #214      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.62%   79.82%   +0.19%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines         854      892      +38     
  Branches      186      199      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits          680      712      +32     
- Misses        141      144       +3     
- Partials       33       36       +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
kmapper/kmapper.py	88.67% <82.35%> (-0.79%)	:arrow_down:
kmapper/cover.py	88.88% <100.00%> (+0.46%)	: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 56dbd66...0bd7b00. Read the comment docs.

[sauln]

@pulquero , you have 2 PRs (this and #213). Should we review both, or does this one subsume the other?

[pulquero]

This subsumes both, so you could just review this one. Or if you want to do it in parts, start with the other.

[deargle]

In general in the above, I argue for converting nearest_nodes (formerly nearest_clusters) into a one-stop function that calls the other two created by this and the previous pr.

[deargle]

Side note, @sauln I didn't realize that sphinx-gallery would even render files that don't plot_ anything, see here. I'll go back and link to the rendered version of make-circles in our docs, it currently links out to github.

[pulquero]

Hit a bit of a snag, but we should be good now.