[Numpy-discussion] Stricter numpydoc validation
larson.eric.d at gmail.com
Tue Jul 16 07:16:47 EDT 2019
I have written and/or used something like this (though not nearly as
complete!) in several other projects. It would be great to have one
maintained source for such a checker, and numpydoc seems like a reasonable
place for it.
The one thing I worry about is maintenance burden, where numpydoc is
already spread a little bit thin -- would any of the Pandas developers be
willing to maintain it?
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 6:56 AM Marc Garcia <garcia.marc at gmail.com> wrote:
> In pandas we've been, for more than a year now, enforcing a stricter
> numpydoc standard. And we've got a script to help with it, which validates
> things like capitalization and punctuation of paragraphs, the documented
> parameters (they must match the ones in the signature, have both a type and
> a description...), PEP-8 of the standards, and many more things, so all our
> docstrings are consistent.
> I saw that there is an issue with a discussion on having a more strict
> standard for numpydoc, I added a comment there on whether would make sense
> to move the pandas standard and validation code to numpydoc:
> I think it's worth opening the discussion here too. Is there interest in
> the rest of the community on having a stricter standard, and move the
> pandas validation (with the required updates) to numpydoc? Of course we can
> discuss also the exact standard, but probably worth finding out first if a
> stricter numpydoc standard would make sense for everyone.
> You can find the documentation of our standard at:
> And the script that we use to validate, as well as the exact list of
> errors we detect in:
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion