Repeated capabilities documentation should use real world example
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 128
- Forks
- 110
- Avg merge
- 5d 14h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 10
Description
We recently added documentation for the repeated capability containers.
See example https://nimi-python.readthedocs.io/en/master/nifgen/rep_caps.html
This is silly:
session.script_triggers['0-2'].channel_enabled = True
We should use a real example.
We should use more pythonic notation session.script_triggers[0,2] or something like that.
The following is silly:
session.script_triggers['ScriptTrigger0-ScriptTrigger2'].channel_enabled = True
Sure it works, but why teach people this? A single more Pythonic example should suffice.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the repeated capability documentation at https://nimi-python.readthedocs.io/en/master/nifgen/rep_caps.html and review the two ScriptTrigger examples described in the issue. Replace the contrived examples with one realistic, Pythonic example, then verify that the rendered documentation clearly explains the intended indexing.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100