skrub-data
Improve doc api reference
Thanks a lot @Vincent-Maladiere, this is already looking so much better!
I think that most of the infrastructure is there, and now it's mostly a matter of deciding the order and the titles of the sections.
For example, I would like to reorder the objects in the skrub section of the section navigation index so that related objects were closer to each other (so that all the Encoders are next to each other, all the Joiners are next to each other and so on). Is that doable?
Discussed during the skrub meeting:
- The current grouping of the objects is not very intuitive: objects should be grouped by functionality more than by namespace (all encoders together, all joiners together etc.). We might want to reflect the grouping that is used in the user guide.
- For the moment, adding a search bar was more complex than expected, so it should be added at a later time
Thanks a lot for this PR.
I had a very quick look.
On the rendered page, I don't see the "section" titles appearing. For instance, the api_renference.py file suggests that the first part, the "pipeline" part, has a title "building a pipeline", but I don't see it:
I think that it would really help if they appeared as dividers. I do note that it is not the case in the scikit-learn docs, so maybe it is not feasible.
Thank you for your feedback. It's probably feasible, but I aimed to stick to the scikit-learn style. In this instance, if you click on "pipeline" on the left sidebar, you'll see that the title is indeed "Building a pipeline". So it all boils down to what we want. WDYT?
It's probably feasible, but I aimed to stick to the scikit-learn style.
If we can improve on it, it is even better :)
In this instance, if you click on "pipeline" on the left sidebar, you'll see that the title is indeed "Building a pipeline".
Indeed, and that's pretty cool!
So it all boils down to what we want. WDYT?
That's true. I think that if we could have the section title separating a bit the big table it would be cool. If it's hard, then we move on and merge as is.
I can give it a try!
Thanks! And if you hit a snag, tell us, and we'll move on.
This is amazing!!
One tiny remark: can we add somewhere in the dev guide how to add symbols to the API reference, to make it easier for people to find the relevant files. It's now a bit hard to find this
can we add somewhere in the dev guide how to add symbols to the API reference
I added a small entry at the bottom of the development section