Skip to content

Conversation

@henrydingliu
Copy link
Collaborator

fixing jupyter_black dependency.

Tested on separate RTD instance based on my repo.

fixing jupyter_black dependency
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.44%. Comparing base (358c89c) to head (cee7254).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #632   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.44%   84.44%           
=======================================
  Files          84       84           
  Lines        4823     4823           
  Branches      610      610           
=======================================
  Hits         4073     4073           
  Misses        538      538           
  Partials      212      212           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 84.44% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@kennethshsu
Copy link
Collaborator

@henrydingliu I thought we agreed to not put linter as a dependency?

@henrydingliu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oh did we? i didn't see any mentions in the issue. will close PR

@kennethshsu
Copy link
Collaborator

Ya, I actually was thinking maybe we should break out the doc repo vs the code repo.... Some projects do that. Maybe we can discuss more...

@henrydingliu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lol, our doc setup is indeed a bit outdated. in researching the latex issue, i canvassed many repos and saw that nobody is using .ipynb in their doc anymore.

@kennethshsu
Copy link
Collaborator

What do people use nowadays? I'd be interested doing another revamp...

@henrydingliu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

i'm seeing a lot of .rst, e.g. sklearn. The raw file appears cleaner than .ipynb. These days any .ipynb change on our repo ends up being large swings in deletes and adds (e.g. this and that).

@kennethshsu
Copy link
Collaborator

Ya I hate the review of ipynb's. We should probably discuss this more. I'm all about documentation, as it's the first thing people see...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants