Skip to content

[DOC] Fix inconsistent double backticks in similarity_search module (#809) #2618

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

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

adityagh006
Copy link
Contributor

This PR addresses issue #809 by standardizing the use of double backticks (``) for inline code references in the similarity_search module. Previously, some docstrings inconsistently used single backticks (`), which rendered text as italics instead of formatted code.

Changes made:
Replaced inconsistent single backticks with double backticks for inline code references.
Ensured uniform formatting across the following files:
aeon/similarity_search/base.py
aeon/similarity_search/distance_profiles/euclidean_distance_profile.py
aeon/similarity_search/distance_profiles/squared_distance_profile.py
aeon/similarity_search/matrix_profiles/stomp.py
aeon/similarity_search/query_search.py
aeon/similarity_search/series_search.py
Maintained readability and adherence to the Aeon documentation guidelines.
This update improves the clarity of API documentation and aligns with the preferred style for referring to code elements.

@adityagh006 adityagh006 requested a review from baraline as a code owner March 13, 2025 20:20
@aeon-actions-bot aeon-actions-bot bot added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation similarity search Similarity search package labels Mar 13, 2025
@aeon-actions-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for contributing to aeon

I have added the following labels to this PR based on the title: [ $\color{#F3B9F8}{\textsf{documentation}}$ ].
I have added the following labels to this PR based on the changes made: [ $\color{#006b75}{\textsf{similarity search}}$ ]. Feel free to change these if they do not properly represent the PR.

The Checks tab will show the status of our automated tests. You can click on individual test runs in the tab or "Details" in the panel below to see more information if there is a failure.

If our pre-commit code quality check fails, any trivial fixes will automatically be pushed to your PR unless it is a draft.

Don't hesitate to ask questions on the aeon Slack channel if you have any.

PR CI actions

These checkboxes will add labels to enable/disable CI functionality for this PR. This may not take effect immediately, and a new commit may be required to run the new configuration.

  • Run pre-commit checks for all files
  • Run mypy typecheck tests
  • Run all pytest tests and configurations
  • Run all notebook example tests
  • Run numba-disabled codecov tests
  • Stop automatic pre-commit fixes (always disabled for drafts)
  • Disable numba cache loading
  • Push an empty commit to re-run CI checks

@adityagh006 adityagh006 force-pushed the doc-fix-similarity-search branch from 3cd3b42 to a78512d Compare March 15, 2025 16:43
@adityagh006
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @baraline, it looks like tj-actions/changed-files@v45 couldn't be fetched, possibly due to a version issue. Updating it to v44 or v46 in .github/workflows/pre-commit.yml might help. Let me know how to proceed!

@baraline
Copy link
Member

Hi, I'd wait for #2473 to be in for this PR to go through, as it will rework the module completely. Regarding the precommit issue, this is something we'll fix as it is currently affecting other PRs

@adityagh006 adityagh006 force-pushed the doc-fix-similarity-search branch from 6650cf3 to a78512d Compare April 12, 2025 07:14
@adityagh006
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @baraline,

The changes in this PR address issue #809 by standardizing the use of double backticks for inline code references in the similarity_search module. I’ve replaced inconsistent single backticks with double backticks across the relevant files.

Since the CI checks have passed and the changes are ready for review, could you kindly review and approve the PR when possible?

@MatthewMiddlehurst
Copy link
Member

In-case this was not clear in the previous message, the vast majority of this code is due to be removed or significantly changed. We probably won't review this because its never going to see a release even if merged. I'll keep this open for now so its visible for GSoC purposes if that is relevant, but it will likely be closed.

@adityagh006
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the clarification, @MatthewMiddlehurst. I understand that the module is scheduled for major changes and that this PR may not be merged. I appreciate you keeping it open for visibility in the context of GSoC.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation similarity search Similarity search package
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants