-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
Model documentation needs reviewing (Trac #19) #248
Comments
Trac update at |
Trac update at |
Trac update at
|
Trac update at
to:
Steve King and I reviewed the documentation for the following models:
Changed documentation where necessary so that it better matched what was going on in the code. Added a "''[Date] - Reviewed by [Reviewers]''" comment to the end of each section. Changes made under revision [http://sourceforge.net/p/sasview/code/6794 http://trac.sasview.org/ticket/6794]. |
Trac update at
to:
|
Trac update at |
Trac update at Richard Heenan made some suggestions for changes to the CoreShellCylinder Model documentation. These changes were made under revision [https://sourceforge.net/p/sasview/code/6828/ http://trac.sasview.org/ticket/6828]. |
Trac update at Sphere Model documentation amended again, under revision [http://sourceforge.net/p/sasview/code/6845/ http://trac.sasview.org/ticket/6845]. |
Trac update at |
Trac update at
Structure of model documentation should be formalized to include author and date of initial implementation in !SasView, of most recent change, and name of a reviewer/tester and date of "validation" For release 3.1 we could leave some as unknown or author = ported from NIST IGOR or some such.
|
Trac update at
Important but not critical to release so moving to next release+1
|
Trac update at |
Trac update at changing to blocker as this is one of the 6 primary tasks listed in the Roadmap for this release |
Trac update at |
Trac update at
This task is "embarrassingly parallel" and each model can be reviewed by a different person. In practice probably only a handful of people who can actually do this? Suggest that the assigned person is responsible for seeing that things get done? Probably start by making a table as we did for conversions that people can use to claim and then check as done? Also ONLY CONVERTED models documentation should be addressed/looked at. Also make sure to add the "Last reviewed on: date by: reviewer name" section at the bottom of each.
|
Trac update at
This has essentially been done and as a large and vague umbrella is no longer useful. All existing models should now have had a thorough review including first pass at some consistency in presentation, all equations fixed and checked against the logic of code, text edited for legibility, and all parameters, their defaults and output plot are now all autogenerated. Only thing remaining I believe are
Will open these as separate tickets and close this one now.
|
Trac update at In changeset 9300bfa:
|
The documentation for each model needs reviewing for correctness and completeness. E.g. the core-shell ellipsoid model has a picture of an ellipsoid, but not a core-shell one.
Migrated from http://trac.sasview.org/ticket/19
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: