Opened 2 years ago

Closed 11 days ago

#554 closed defect (fixed)

sasmodels docs should not refer to documentation in SasView

Reported by: butler Owned by: ajj
Priority: major Milestone: SasView Next Release +1
Component: SasView Keywords:
Cc: Work Package: SasView Documentation

Description

There is currently at least one place (and probably more) where sasmodels documentation is referencing documentation in SasView: core_multi_shell references the mag_help document in sasgui/perspectives/fitting fro information on magnetic angles and help.

Need to check all documents for this and decide how to proceed. For the particular case above, once magnetic models are included we should probably rewrite the help anyway and if necessary could make the magnetic angles pic part of sasmodels … and in the very worst case refer to the sasmodels docs from with SasView which would be the correct order of dependencies.

Change History (8)

comment:1 Changed 2 years ago by smk78

Actually, core_multi_shell is the only sasmodel that references /sasgui (I just searched in Eclipse).

comment:2 Changed 2 years ago by smk78

The more important issue here is that at present (due to time and intelligence constraints) the sasmodels docs must be built before the sasview docs in order for integrated documentation to be built correctly because it copies down the pre-assembled .rst model help files from sasmodels.

As part of the next release the sasview doc build needs to be updated to trawl the sasmodels files directly as happens in the sasmodels docs build.

comment:3 Changed 2 years ago by butler

Agreed that the current set up is not ideal but not sure what the correct answer will be once sasmodels is properly released as a package.

In any case however this is only an inconvenience. The original issue actually breaks sasmodels for any application beyond SasView that wants to use sasmodels with its docs. Because it is not yet released fully as a package there is nobody else, but we already know of one package that IS using the old sasmodels and very much wants the new package.

Thus I would argue the *more important issue* remains the first one mentioned which essentially is, I think, a violation of proper coding rules, though clearly both issues should be addressed.

comment:4 Changed 2 years ago by butler

On reviewing I think we are starting to confuse ourselves between sasmodels and SasView. This ticket was meant clearly as a sasmodels ticket whereas the second concern is really a SasView issue. Probably should add a new component to trac named sasmodels. In the meantime am moving the issue of needing to build the sasmodels before building SasView to ticket #555 which is the SasView package building ticket.

Once sasmodels no longer relies on SasView this ticket can be closed.

comment:5 Changed 2 years ago by smk78

Have committed 4 additional (to core_multi_shell.py) changes (to fix broken links to polar_mag_help.html which doesn't exist) in sasmodels:

sphere.py
_spherepy.py
fuzzy_sphere.py
multilayer_vesicle.py

This further exacerbates the problem with sasmodels docs not being standalone (but does mean the integrated docs will link properly).

comment:6 Changed 2 years ago by ajj

  • Owner set to ajj
  • Status changed from new to assigned

comment:7 Changed 11 days ago by smk78

Replaced link to mag_help.rst in sasview with link to magnetism.rst in sasmodels in _spherepy.py

comment:8 Changed 11 days ago by smk78

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from assigned to closed

As far as I can tell, sasmodels documentation should now be independent of sasview so am closing this ticket.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.