Andy Porter

> One other note that I think is probably important - no matter what solution we pick the current `options={...}` will need to stick around and take precedence over the...

I'm doing some experiments - see the above commit. I think I have a good solution APART from the auto-generated documentation which is proving really hard to crack.

Nice, I hadn't thought of doing it that way. This way, we just document the arguments in the, say, `apply` docstring in the usual way? For `validate` I would suggest...

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about the need to attempt to document *all* options to a Transformation, including inherited ones. How would the programmatic modification of __doc__ work? Would we do...

I think it would be good if we could allow user code to remain completely unchanged for now (i.e. support `options=options` as an argument). Presumably that's still possible with a...

> @arporter Did I hear right this morning that it I should ignore stub generation for now? Yep, you should just make sure that you have a test that we...

> @arporter, I can't get Codecov to recognize that I am checking the "uncovered" line (see in `src/psyclone/tests/domain/lfric/dofkern_test.py::test_function_space_bare_undf`). I'm stuck and asking for some help please. Unfortunately, you're a victim...

I forgot to say - the Dev Guide still needs updating (see previous comment).

> > On master, there is no check that this isn't a Builtin - we always added a field argument. This may be because this method is never called for...

> > Also, what was the reason for having the 'bare' undf name - I'm sure there was one but I can't remember! > > It was something that I...