Code snippets

[Edu92337]

Description

What is this PR

• Bug fix
• Addition of a new feature
• Other

Why is this PR needed?
Users need a quick way to verify that sample datasets can be fetched and loaded correctly. Currently, there's no documentation showing this workflow, which can leave users uncertain if their data loading is working properly.

What does this PR do?
Adds code snippets to the documentation demonstrating how to verify sample data loading:

1. Updates fetch_dataset_paths() docstring with a verification example
2. Adds a "Verifying sample data" subsection to the Adding Data documentation

References

Closes #654

How has this PR been tested?

• Verified that existing functionality remains unchanged (only documentation was modified)
• Built documentation locally to confirm proper rendering

Is this a breaking change?

No. This PR only adds documentation and does not modify any existing code functionality.

Does this PR require an update to the documentation?

This PR is a documentation update. No further documentation changes are needed.

Checklist:

• The code has been tested locally
• Tests have been added to cover all new functionality (N/A - documentation only)
• The documentation has been updated to reflect any changes
• The code has been formatted with pre-commit

[niksirbi]

Thanks for opening the PR, @Edu92337!

Just a heads-up that the current CI failures are unrelated to your changes. You can fix them by fetching updates from the main branch. You can either:

• merge the current main branch into your PR branch, or
• rebase your branch onto main.

Once that’s done, the CI should pass again (or fail for reasons related to your PR).

The same also applies to your other PRs #765 and #757.

Since you currently have 3 PRs awaiting review, please hold off on opening new ones until we've merged at least some of the existing work.

This helps us in two ways:

• We can focus on getting your current PRs finished rather than spreading review effort across more submissions
• Early PRs often surface patterns we'd like to see adjusted. Once those are addressed, subsequent contributions typically require much less back-and-forth

This is not a criticism of your work by the way, the effort you've put into these PRs is appreciated. This is purely about managing our review capacity effectively.

[Edu92337]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've updated all three PRs with the latest main branch. I'll wait for your review before opening any new PRs.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (b3f5a9c) to head (0222c30).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #759   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           34        34           
  Lines         2111      2111           
=========================================
  Hits          2111      2111           

☔ 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.

[sfmig]

Hi @Edu92337, thanks for having a go at this issue.

I like the "Verifying sample data" section you drafted. However, I noticed that it is added to the user guide, rather than to the Contributing guide as was originally suggested in the issue. I was wondering if there was a reason? My original suggestion was to include this code snippet + brief text just after the CONTRIBUTION > Adding data section, so that we can quickly check if the data was correctly added to the GIN repository. But let me know if you think otherwise. If you agree, would you mind moving it to the Contributing guide?

Re the added docstring example in the sample_data.py module, I think we should remove it for consistency with the rest of the codebase. I think in all cases we use the examples in the docstrings to demo the function they refer to, and not any other, just for clarity for our users.

Let me know thoughts, thanks again!

[Edu92337]

thanks for the feedback @sfmig , I misunderstood where this should go. I'll move the "Verifying sample data" section to the Contributing guide and remove the example from the docstring to keep it consistent with the rest of the codebase.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud