Code review

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I have reviewed some code but there is a lot left to look at.  I am marking 
things as ".. todo::" so they'll get picked up in sphinx.  I propose the 
following remaining tasks on this front:

 * Finish out remainder of todos.  Most of these can be done by whomever but a few might need Michalis to answer questions.
 * Functional review in depth for each call in createSFNetworkFromCubeNetwork.py, starting with insertVirtualNodeBetweenCentroidsAndRoadNodes(), which I started but didn't complete because of time constraints.  Some of the TODOs have to do with this code. Further, between the two moveVirtualNodesTo[something], I want to be sure that these are doing the minimum required to solve Dynameq errors, because as they stand now the virtual nodes look like they're moved quite a bit and the network looks distorted.
  * Functional review in depth for each call in the next script we'll use -- importExcelSignals.py, presumable?
  * Review of the remaining files.  I've marked a few files that I've read over with ".. note:: lmz has read over this, so todos are marked."

I would really like all important functionality (e.g. all the methods we call 
from our scripts) to at least be documented as far as:
 * What does the method do - and with some precision, more than repeating the function name.  Specifically,
   * What problem is it trying to solve?
   * Some detail on how it solves it.
 * What are the args -- what type is expected, what units are the arguments that have units associated.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by lisa.zorn@sfcta.org on 27 Feb 2012 at 5:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by lisa.zorn@sfcta.org on 27 Feb 2012 at 5:24

• Added labels: Type-Review
• Removed labels: Type-Functionality

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by lisa.zorn@sfcta.org on 27 Feb 2012 at 7:15

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'll split these into separate issues

Original comment by lisa.zorn@sfcta.org on 7 Mar 2012 at 10:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Lowering priority to post-July.  Since this has been split into separate 
issues, can we close this? 

Original comment by greg.erh...@ucl.ac.uk on 12 Jun 2012 at 3:58

• Added labels: Priority-Low

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think so, yes.

Original comment by lisa.zorn@sfcta.org on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:07

• Changed state: Duplicate