chore: add structured package data for packages in math/base/special

[gunjjoshi]

---

type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes. report:

• task: lint_filenames status: passed
• task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
• task: lint_markdown status: na
• task: lint_package_json status: passed
• task: lint_repl_help status: na
• task: lint_javascript_src status: na
• task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
• task: lint_javascript_examples status: na
• task: lint_javascript_tests status: na
• task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_python status: na
• task: lint_r status: na
• task: lint_c_src status: na
• task: lint_c_examples status: na
• task: lint_c_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
• task: lint_shell status: na
• task: lint_typescript_declarations status: na
• task: lint_typescript_tests status: na
• task: lint_license_headers status: passed ---

Resolves a part of #7924.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• adds structured package data for the following packages:
  • math/base/special/acscf
  • math/base/special/acsch
  • math/base/special/asin
  • math/base/special/asinf

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request:

• resolves a part of [RFC]: add structured package data for unary functions in math/base/special (tracking issue) #7924.

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
math/base/special/acscf	$\color{green}171/171$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}5/5$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}2/2$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}171/171$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$
math/base/special/acsch	$\color{green}157/157$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}5/5$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}2/2$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}157/157$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$
math/base/special/asin	$\color{red}361/373$ $\color{green}+96.78\%$	$\color{red}27/32$ $\color{green}+84.38\%$	$\color{green}4/4$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{red}361/373$ $\color{green}+96.78\%$
math/base/special/asinf	$\color{green}295/295$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}25/25$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}3/3$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}295/295$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

[gunjjoshi]

I've now added more examples, and removed acsc from this PR, as the package data for acsc was already added via #8026

[gunjjoshi]

The CI errors state that:

ERROR: package.json in lib/node_modules/@stdlib/math/base/special/asin needs updates to directories and/or gypfile fields

But I see all directories already present in the directories filed, and the gypfile field set to true, for example, in asin.

[Planeshifter]

@gunjjoshi

The workflow failed because it internally serializes and deserializes the JSON blobs, which causes the trailing zeros to be removed. See the diffs, e.g.:

-            1.0
+            1

It's on my TODO list to investigate this problem with the check for changes in the package.json files and find a solution to not fail when neither gypfile or directories is incorrect. For the time being, I propose removing the trailing zeros for tests to pass.

[kgryte]

LGTM

[kgryte]

LGTM after fixing formatting issues.