Skip to content

docs: match :param names to the signatures in sensors and DHRobot - #906

Merged
petercorke merged 2 commits into
petercorke:mainfrom
mmporong:docs/param-names
Nov 2, 2026
Merged

petercorke merged 2 commits into
petercorke:mainfrom
mmporong:docs/param-names

Conversation

@mmporong

@mmporong mmporong commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks for contributing to RTB!

Summary

Docstring fix only: four :param: fields name arguments that the functions do not have.

  • RangeBearingSensor.Hx, Hp and Hw document the landmark argument as arg; the parameter is landmark.
  • DHRobot.config_validate documents allowable; the parameter is allowables. Its description was the placeholder [description], now "one string of valid characters per choice, default first", which is what the method does (config_validate(config, ("lr", "ud", "nf")) in Puma560).

This does not change numerical results or public behaviour.

Checked with an AST comparison of each :param name against the function signature (the four mismatches are gone) and ruff check / ruff format --check on both files (identical findings before and after, none on the changed lines). pytest, mypy and the Sphinx build were not run, since only docstrings change.

This change was prepared with Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5).

Related issue

None.

Checklist

Only the first item below is checked automatically — the rest are a self-check for you before requesting review, nothing currently verifies them for you.

  • I checked that no other open PR already addresses this Issue, and commented on the Issue to claim it
  • PR title follows Conventional Commits (type: description) — checked automatically, see the "Check PR title" status
  • Tests pass locally (pytest)
  • Added/updated tests for this change, if applicable
  • New/changed code is type-hinted with modern syntax (X | Y, list[X], not Union/Optional/List)
  • Docstrings updated (reST style: :param:, :returns:; type hints in the signature cover types now, :type:/:rtype: are rarely needed)
  • PR is as small/focused as practical — if it tackles several unrelated things, consider splitting it so each can be reviewed and accepted independently
  • I understand that the Codacy check is advisory (it reports assert in tests as "high" security), only All tests passed and the PR title check are required — see CONTRIBUTING
  • If this change alters numerical results or public behaviour, I have said so in the summary above, even if it is a bug fix
  • If an AI assistant wrote or helped with this change, I have said so in the summary above, and I have read the diff myself
  • No test files, data files, or notebooks specific to your own project — PyPI has strict package size limits, and RTB is already split into a toolbox and a data package. Notebooks, if of general interest, should have output cleared before committing.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

RangeBearingSensor.Hx, Hp and Hw document their landmark argument as
`arg`, and DHRobot.config_validate documents `allowable`, but the
parameters are `landmark` and `allowables`. Use the real names, and
replace the `[description]` placeholder for `allowables`.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@codacy-production

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

🟢 Metrics 0 complexity · 0 duplication

Metric Results
Complexity 0
Duplication 0

View in Codacy

NEW Get contextual insights on your PRs based on Codacy's metrics, along with PR and Jira context, without leaving GitHub. Enable AI reviewer
TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.

@petercorke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thank you for your first contribution to RTB. Those :param names did not match the signatures, and the [description] placeholder is now a real description. I'm updating your branch from main, and will merge it once the checks pass.

@petercorke
petercorke merged commit 00743ac into petercorke:main Nov 2, 2026
24 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants