Just wanted to bump this - does anyone have concerns with the way the API docs look when inherited members are included?
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 5:23 PM Brian Hulette <[email protected]> wrote: > I staged my current working copy built from head here [1], see > CombinePerKey here [2]. Note it also has a few other changes, most notably > I excluded several internal-only modules that are currently in our API docs > (I will PR this soon regardless). > > > are these inherited members grouped in such a way that it makes it easy > to ignore them once they get to "low" in the stack? > There doesn't seem to be any grouping, but it does look like inherited > members are added at the end. > > > If it can't be per-module, is there a "nice" set of ancestors to avoid > (as it seems this option takes such an argument). > Ah good point, I missed this. I suppose we could avoid basic constructs > like PTransform, DoFn, etc. I'm not sure how realistic that is though. It > would be nice if this argument worked the other way > > [1] https://theneuralbit.github.io/beam-site/pydoc/inherited-members > [2] > https://theneuralbit.github.io/beam-site/pydoc/inherited-members/apache_beam.transforms.core.html#apache_beam.transforms.core.CombinePerKey > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:45 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 to an example. In particular, are these inherited members grouped in >> such a way that it makes it easy to ignore them once they get to "low" in >> the stack? If it can't be per-module, is there a "nice" set of ancestors to >> avoid (as it seems this option takes such an argument). >> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:23 PM Pablo Estrada <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Do you have an example of what it would look like when released? >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:16 PM Brian Hulette <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm working on generating useful API docs for the DataFrame API >>>> (BEAM-12074). In doing so, one thing I've found would be very helpful is if >>>> we could include docstrings for inherited members in the API docs. That way >>>> docstrings for operations defined in DeferredDataFrameOrSeries [1], will be >>>> propagated to DeferredDataFrame [2] and DeferredSeries, and the former can >>>> be hidden entirely. This would be more consistent with the pandas >>>> documentation [3]. >>>> >>>> It looks like we can do this by specifying :inherited-members: [4], but >>>> this will apply to _all_ of our API docs, there doesn't seem to be a way to >>>> restrict it to a particular module. This seems generally useful to me, but >>>> it would be a significant change, so I wanted to see if there are any >>>> objections from dev@ before doing this. >>>> >>>> An example of the kind of change this would produce: any PTransform >>>> sub-classes, e.g. CombinePerKey [5], would now include docstrings for every >>>> PTransform member, e.g. with_input_types [6], and display_data [7]. >>>> >>>> Would there be any objections to that? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://beam.apache.org/releases/pydoc/2.27.0/apache_beam.dataframe.frames.html#apache_beam.dataframe.frames.DeferredDataFrameOrSeries >>>> [2] >>>> https://beam.apache.org/releases/pydoc/2.27.0/apache_beam.dataframe.frames.html#apache_beam.dataframe.frames.DeferredDataFrame >>>> [3] https://pandas.pydata.org/docs/reference/frame.html >>>> [4] https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/extensions/autodoc.html >>>> [5] >>>> https://beam.apache.org/releases/pydoc/2.27.0/apache_beam.transforms.core.html?highlight=combineperkey#apache_beam.transforms.core.CombinePerKey >>>> [6] >>>> https://beam.apache.org/releases/pydoc/2.27.0/apache_beam.transforms.ptransform.html#apache_beam.transforms.ptransform.PTransform.with_input_types >>>> [7] >>>> https://beam.apache.org/releases/pydoc/2.27.0/apache_beam.transforms.display.html#apache_beam.transforms.display.HasDisplayData.display_data >>>> >>>
