Model documentation needs reviewing

[ajjackson]

The documentation for each model needs reviewing for correctness and completeness. E.g. the core-shell ellipsoid model has a picture of an ellipsoid, but not a core-shell one.

[Peter Parker]

Steve King and I reviewed the documentation for the following models:

• DAB Model
• Sphere Model
• Mass Fractal Model
• CorrLength? Model
• BroadPeak? Model

Changed documentation where necessary so that it better matched what was going on in the code.

Added a "[Date] - Reviewed by [Reviewers]" comment to the end of each section.

Changes made under revision ​#6794.

[Peter Parker]

Richard Heenan made some suggestions for changes to the CoreShellCylinder? Model documentation. These changes were made under revision ​#6828.

[Peter Parker]

Sphere Model documentation amended again, under revision ​#6845.

[butler]

Structure of model documentation should be formalized to include author and date of initial implementation in SasView, of most recent change, and name of a reviewer/tester and date of "validation" For release 3.1 we could leave some as unknown or author = ported from NIST IGOR or some such.

[butler]

Important but not critical to release so moving to next release+1

[butler]

changing to blocker as this is one of the 6 primary tasks listed in the Roadmap for this release

[butler]

This task is "embarrassingly parallel" and each model can be reviewed by a different person. In practice probably only a handful of people who can actually do this? Suggest that the assigned person is responsible for seeing that things get done? Probably start by making a table as we did for conversions that people can use to claim and then check as done? Also ONLY CONVERTED models documentation should be addressed/looked at.

Also make sure to add the "Last reviewed on: date by: reviewer name" section at the bottom of each.

[butler]

This has essentially been done and as a large and vague umbrella is no longer useful. All existing models should now have had a thorough review including first pass at some consistency in presentation, all equations fixed and checked against the logic of code, text edited for legibility, and all parameters, their defaults and output plot are now all autogenerated. Only thing remaining I believe are

• ensure standardized nomenclature (affects documentation in that name changes will need to be reflected here.
• ensure all documentation follows standard format and includes the ref section and reviewer section.

Will open these as separate tickets and close this one now.

[GitHub <noreply@…>]

In 9300bfaf72c2791ade4cf282bbb78890fb79c49c/sasview:

Merge pull request #19 from SasView?/ticket-772

Added descriptions of special functions located in sasmodels/../lib to p…