Docstring cleanup #1934
Docstring cleanup #1934
Conversation
src/pint/models/pulsar_binary.py
Outdated
| orbits(t) = (t - T0) / PB | ||
| + \sum_{n=0} (ORBWAVECn cos(ORBWAVE_OM * (n + 1) * (t - ORBWAVE_EPOCH)) | ||
| + \\sum_{n=0} (ORBWAVECn cos(ORBWAVE_OM * (n + 1) * (t - ORBWAVE_EPOCH)) | ||
| + ORBWAVESn sin(ORBWAVE_OM * (n + 1) * (t - ORBWAVE_EPOCH)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like this is still not rendering quite right. Does it need to be set in a math block? The plus's are being turned into bullet points.
https://nanograv-pint--1934.org.readthedocs.build/en/1934/_autosummary/pint.models.pulsar_binary.PulsarBinary.html#pint.models.pulsar_binary.PulsarBinary
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's still looking weird:
| .. math:: | ||
|
|
||
| ki = KIN + \delta_{KIN} | ||
| ki = KIN + \\delta_{KIN} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This ki notation is a little odd, and doesn't really appear in the paper. Can we make this more clear?
| \\delta_{kin} = (-\\mu_{long} \\sin(KOM) + \\mu_{lat} \\cos(KOM)) (t-T_0) | ||
|
|
||
| \delta_x = a_1 \delta_{kin} \cot(kin) | ||
| \\delta_x = a_1 \\delta_{kin} \\cot(kin) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should the kin here be KIN? I think so for the subscript here and above (following the paper). and I don't know if the argument of the cot should be ki (from delta_kin_proper_motion()) or KIN - again, the notation is a little confusing.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1934 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 69.93% 70.55% +0.62%
==========================================
Files 111 109 -2
Lines 25942 25709 -233
Branches 4078 4053 -25
==========================================
- Hits 18142 18139 -3
+ Misses 6658 6428 -230
Partials 1142 1142 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
2 participants
No description provided.