updated docstrings #170
updated docstrings #170
Conversation
basfroman
left a comment
basfroman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since you've already started correcting your docstrings, let's make it perfect.
- Use the same name for arguments (Args or Arguments - presumably the latter).
- If a function has an parameter, add its description in the variable docstring as well.
- Use consistent indentation throughout the all updated docstring description.
| /// Checks for existing coldkeypub and hotkeys, and creates them if non-existent. | ||
| /// Arguments: | ||
| /// coldkey_use_password (bool): Whether to use a password for coldkey. Defaults to ``True``. | ||
| /// hotkey_use_password (bool): Whether to use a password for hotkey. Defaults to ``False``. | ||
| /// save_coldkey_to_env (bool): Whether to save a coldkey password to local env. Defaults to ``False``. | ||
| /// save_hotkey_to_env (bool): Whether to save a hotkey password to local env. Defaults to ``False``. | ||
| /// coldkey_password (Optional[str]): Coldkey password for encryption. Defaults to ``None``. If `coldkey_password` is passed, then `coldkey_use_password` is automatically ``True``. | ||
| /// hotkey_password (Optional[str]): Hotkey password for encryption. Defaults to ``None``. If `hotkey_password` is passed, then `hotkey_use_password` is automatically ``True``. | ||
| /// overwrite (bool): Whether to overwrite an existing keys. Defaults to ``False``. | ||
| /// suppress (bool): If ``True``, suppresses the display of the keys mnemonic message. Defaults to ``False``. | ||
| /// | ||
| /// Returns: | ||
| /// Wallet instance with created keys. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what's the reason to remove it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it kept overwriting the docstrings for create on the wallet.rs file and was kept rendering weirdly for some reason in the docs. For context:
i replicated it in the wallet.rs btw. hopefully it doesnt break anything?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't mind to add additional docstrings, but I don't want to remove existing ones.
Actually, I care about the code quality first then about the documentation.
We need to find the way, when both goals achieved, but without code|docstrings editing|removing bc some doc generator doesn't work properly.
Does this make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You know what? let me try putting that bit of docstrings back in the python_bindings.rs file but with the updated formatting i adopted for the docstrings in the create function in the wallet.rs file.
i'll let you know how that turns out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
works fine with the new format. i've made pushed the latest changes
| /// Checks if the given public_key is a valid ed25519 key. | ||
| /// | ||
| /// Arguments: | ||
| /// public_key (bytes): The public_key to check as bytes. | ||
| /// Returns: | ||
| /// valid (bool): ``True`` if the public_key is a valid ed25519 key, ``False`` otherwise. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this was added here cause the docs generator tool wasnt seeing the is_valid_ed25519_pubkey function (didnt exist on utils.rs).
took a look and noticed that it was because it was kind of binded (idk what the word is) with the are_bytes_valid_ed25519_pubkey function in the wallet.rs.
2 participants
updated docstrings for the Bittensor Wallet SDK to enable docs generation.