Skip to content
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

Missing documentation for IntegralFunction and BatchIntegralFunction #218

Closed
LauravandenBremen opened this issue Jan 19, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #224
Closed

Missing documentation for IntegralFunction and BatchIntegralFunction #218

LauravandenBremen opened this issue Jan 19, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #224

Comments

@LauravandenBremen
Copy link

LauravandenBremen commented Jan 19, 2024

The tutorial in the documentation for Intergral.jl recommends the use of the “nout” and “batch” keywords which are deprecated. When using these, a warning is given and it is recommended to use IntegralFunction and BatchIntegralFunction instead. There is, however, no documentation on how to use Integral function and BatchIntegralFunction.

I would recommend that the use of “nout” and “batch” be removed from the tutorial in the documentation of Integral.jl and that a example for how to use IntegralFunction and BatchIntegralFunction is added instead.

This is the first time I report an Issue likt this so I hope I did it correctly, if I did not please let me know. Below a link to discourse on the subject on the Julia forum. https://discourse.julialang.org/t/is-there-any-documentation-on-integralfunctions/108970

@lxvm
Copy link
Collaborator

lxvm commented Feb 3, 2024

Hi, thanks for the issue. We have docstrings for these functions, which can be viewed from the REPL with

julia> using Integrals

julia>?IntegralFunction

but these live in SciMLBase.jl instead of this repo and I'm not sure if the SciML policy is to document the symbols here or there. @ChrisRackauckas is there preference? It would still be good for me to update the README since I completely ignored it during the updates in favor of writing better tests.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Generally the docstrings are kept with the types, and those are all separate from the solvers for deps reasons.

@lxvm
Copy link
Collaborator

lxvm commented Feb 10, 2024

OK, I added the docstrings to the web docs as well as updated the README and examples in #224, which should resolve this issue.

@lxvm lxvm linked a pull request Feb 10, 2024 that will close this issue
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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants