Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add missing robustness functions in docs #1630

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 29, 2024
Merged

Conversation

juliettelavoie
Copy link
Contributor

@juliettelavoie juliettelavoie commented Jan 29, 2024

Pull Request Checklist:

  • This PR addresses an already opened issue (for bug fixes / features)
    • This PR fixes #xyz
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
    • (If applicable) Documentation has been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • CHANGES.rst has been updated (with summary of main changes)
    • Link to issue (:issue:number) and pull request (:pull:number) has been added

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

  • The new robustness functions are added to the api doc section.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

Other information:

@github-actions github-actions bot added the docs Improvements to documenation label Jan 29, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Approved for additional tests label Jan 29, 2024
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 29, 2024

Coverage Status

coverage: 90.301% (-0.01%) from 90.312%
when pulling d58326d on fix-ensemble-docs
into 8db48d8 on master.

@Zeitsperre
Copy link
Collaborator

@juliettelavoie Think you could tackle the formatting here?

image

@@ -116,8 +118,6 @@ def robustness_fractions( # noqa: C901
| Negative change | (cf - cpf) | 1 - pf - (cf -cpf) | 1 - pf |
+-----------------+--------------------+------------------------+------------+

Notes
-----
Available statistical tests are :

{tests_doc}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

are some tests missing on purpose @aulemahal ? I see ipcc-ar6-c in the example notebook but I can't find it in the code?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Woups, the automatic tests doc generation was done on the wrong method. I think I came up with the mechanism before changing the function name.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@juliettelavoie juliettelavoie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The top of the robustness section refers to IPCC AR5. Should I change it to AR6 ?

@aulemahal
Copy link
Collaborator

Hmm, indeed, the module's header is a bit outdated.

suggestion:

This submodule is inspired by and tries to follow the guidelines of the IPCC, more specifically :cite:p:`collins_long-term_2013` (AR5) and :cite:cts:`ipccatlas_ar6wg1` (AR6).

@juliettelavoie juliettelavoie merged commit 3432dd8 into master Jan 29, 2024
17 checks passed
@juliettelavoie juliettelavoie deleted the fix-ensemble-docs branch January 29, 2024 22:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Approved for additional tests docs Improvements to documenation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants