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

[Doc]: Routine review of documentation for accuracy and relevancy #589

Open
tomvothecoder opened this issue Jan 19, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #644
Open

[Doc]: Routine review of documentation for accuracy and relevancy #589

tomvothecoder opened this issue Jan 19, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #644
Labels
type: docs Updates to documentation

Comments

@tomvothecoder
Copy link
Collaborator

tomvothecoder commented Jan 19, 2024

Describe your documentation update

As suggested by @pochedls, we should perform a routine review of our documentation for accuracy and make sure all information is up-to-date and relevant.

@pochedls
Copy link
Collaborator

pochedls commented Jan 20, 2024

For Users

Gallery

  • I didn't list "Presentations & Demos," "API Reference," or "Changelog"

@pochedls
Copy link
Collaborator

pochedls commented Mar 28, 2024

Review of Spatial Averaging Notebook

  • Give this a simpler title (perhaps with a more descriptive subtitle)
  • Reduce header information
    • Put authors in-line (e.g., Authors: Tom Vo and Stephen Po-Chedley)
    • Update date and include version (Updated XX/YY/ZZZZ using xcdat v0.x.y)
    • Put the data note at the end of the overview instead of the header: The data used in this example is used directly from the [Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF)](https://aims2.llnl.gov/metagrid/search).
  • Notebook Setup: I think this section could be combined with Overview (make it Overview and Setup) and we should systematically point the users to our setup pages instead of documenting this in each notebook:

Users can install their own instance of xcdat and follow these examples using their own environment (e.g., with vscode, Jupyter, Spyder, iPython) or enable xcdat with existing JupyterHub instances.

  • Do we need this: %matplotlib inline? It seems like it doesn't do anything.
  • We don't need to print out the dataset for each of the three domains
  • Add example with keep_weights=True and then plot the weights
  • Show an example of passing in your own weights (tropical, precipitation weighted SST)
    • Could also show the .spatial.get_weights() function here
    • This brings up another issue. We should note that lat_bounds and lon_bounds don't do anything in this case (and we should make sure this is noted in the docstrings).
  • We should show an example of zonal averaging
  • In the plots, we should add a better title (e.g., title=Nino 3.4 time series)
  • In the Nino 3.4 description it seems like we have stray quote block mark down stuff (>)
  • Could potentially include an example where bounds are missing and need to be added

@pochedls
Copy link
Collaborator

Spatial averaging is done (pending a PR). I will also review General Dataset Utilities.

@chengzhuzhang
Copy link
Collaborator

chengzhuzhang commented Apr 15, 2024

A minor glitch: in the linked notebook (https://github.com/pochedls/xcdat/blob/589-doc-reviews/docs/examples/spatial-average.ipynb). The ^{\ \circ} } didn't work to produce degree symbol? Maybe use ^{\circ} in math mode instead?

@pochedls
Copy link
Collaborator

@chengzhuzhang – these are only supposed to produce degree symbols in the plots – I think they are rendering correctly in the plots? Or am I looking at the wrong thing?

@chengzhuzhang
Copy link
Collaborator

Oh, it is a false alarm. I was trying to mimic your PR, but for regridding. The first lines of some output included the string in math mode which confused me, the figures are indeed fine.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: docs Updates to documentation
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants