Clarify variable names in some docstrings

[JoshuaLampert]

I tried to clarify the variable names appearing in some functions typically used within the AnalysisCallback in a number of docstrings. Does this resolve #257 in your view, @pnavaro?

[github-actions]

Benchmark Results (Julia v1.10)

Time benchmarks

	main	6570b32...	main / 6570b32...
bbm_1d/bbm_1d_basic.jl - rhs!:	13.9 ± 0.28 μs	13.8 ± 0.29 μs	1.01 ± 0.03
bbm_1d/bbm_1d_fourier.jl - rhs!:	0.53 ± 0.01 ms	0.218 ± 0.31 ms	2.43 ± 3.5
bbm_bbm_1d/bbm_bbm_1d_basic_reflecting.jl - rhs!:	0.0808 ± 0.00031 ms	0.0819 ± 0.00035 ms	0.987 ± 0.0057
bbm_bbm_1d/bbm_bbm_1d_dg.jl - rhs!:	0.0341 ± 0.00048 ms	0.0343 ± 0.00043 ms	0.993 ± 0.019
bbm_bbm_1d/bbm_bbm_1d_relaxation.jl - rhs!:	27.3 ± 0.43 μs	27.5 ± 0.43 μs	0.993 ± 0.022
bbm_bbm_1d/bbm_bbm_1d_upwind_relaxation.jl - rhs!:	0.0485 ± 0.00083 ms	0.0485 ± 0.0006 ms	1 ± 0.021
hyperbolic_serre_green_naghdi_1d/hyperbolic_serre_green_naghdi_dingemans.jl - rhs!:	4.24 ± 0.04 μs	4.72 ± 0.03 μs	0.898 ± 0.01
kdv_1d/kdv_1d_basic.jl - rhs!:	1.46 ± 0.02 μs	1.41 ± 0.01 μs	1.04 ± 0.016
kdv_1d/kdv_1d_implicit.jl - rhs!:	1.41 ± 0.01 μs	1.41 ± 0.011 μs	0.999 ± 0.011
serre_green_naghdi_1d/serre_green_naghdi_well_balanced.jl - rhs!:	0.196 ± 0.0068 ms	0.194 ± 0.0073 ms	1.01 ± 0.052
svaerd_kalisch_1d/svaerd_kalisch_1d_dingemans_relaxation.jl - rhs!:	0.146 ± 0.0035 ms	0.143 ± 0.0037 ms	1.02 ± 0.036
time_to_load	1.94 ± 0.0079 s	1.94 ± 0.0014 s	0.999 ± 0.0041

Memory benchmarks

	main	6570b32...	main / 6570b32...
bbm_1d/bbm_1d_basic.jl - rhs!:	1 allocs: 4.12 kB	1 allocs: 4.12 kB	1
bbm_1d/bbm_1d_fourier.jl - rhs!:	1 allocs: 4.12 kB	1 allocs: 4.12 kB	1
bbm_bbm_1d/bbm_bbm_1d_basic_reflecting.jl - rhs!:	5 allocs: 1.17 kB	5 allocs: 1.17 kB	1
bbm_bbm_1d/bbm_bbm_1d_dg.jl - rhs!:	10 allocs: 8.62 kB	10 allocs: 8.62 kB	1
bbm_bbm_1d/bbm_bbm_1d_relaxation.jl - rhs!:	2 allocs: 8.25 kB	2 allocs: 8.25 kB	1
bbm_bbm_1d/bbm_bbm_1d_upwind_relaxation.jl - rhs!:	2 allocs: 8.25 kB	2 allocs: 8.25 kB	1
hyperbolic_serre_green_naghdi_1d/hyperbolic_serre_green_naghdi_dingemans.jl - rhs!:	0 allocs: 0 B	0 allocs: 0 B
kdv_1d/kdv_1d_basic.jl - rhs!:	0 allocs: 0 B	0 allocs: 0 B
kdv_1d/kdv_1d_implicit.jl - rhs!:	0 allocs: 0 B	0 allocs: 0 B
serre_green_naghdi_1d/serre_green_naghdi_well_balanced.jl - rhs!:	0.075 k allocs: 0.66 MB	0.075 k allocs: 0.66 MB	1
svaerd_kalisch_1d/svaerd_kalisch_1d_dingemans_relaxation.jl - rhs!:	0.042 k allocs: 0.315 MB	0.042 k allocs: 0.315 MB	1
time_to_load	0.153 k allocs: 14.5 kB	0.153 k allocs: 14.5 kB	1

[pnavaro]

I really like this callback analysis feature 💯

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 19474139459

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 27 of 27 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 6 files are covered.
• 2 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.09%) to 98.467%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
src/visualization.jl	2	97.74%

Totals
Change from base Build 19433129167:	-0.09%
Covered Lines:	2313
Relevant Lines:	2349

---

💛 - Coveralls

[ranocha]

Thanks! Do you have an idea why CI fails?

[JoshuaLampert]

Thanks! Do you have an idea why CI fails?

No, it's an allocation test that fails. It's probably just spurious. This PR does not really change anything code-wise. I'll restart the failing CI test. Hopefully this fixes it.

[ranocha]

Yes, spurious. Thanks!

[JoshuaLampert]

Indeed, CI succeeds after restarting.