@jksuom I'm thinking to provide some kind of explanation, for the order in which presentation is computed with an example, below is an image have a look if it looks fine.
The explanation is good but it seems that pc_series was reversed for computational purposes. Perhaps it would be more logical to use the original order in the documentation: For x3**2, pc_series[4], which is trivial, pc_series[3] for x2**2 and x2**-2*x3*x2, etc.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Yaa, right.
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
The documentation PR looks good. Tests have passed. It can probably be merged soon. As to the other one, I think that it would suffice to add a test for the relative orders being primes.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
I think that it would suffice to add a test for the relative orders being primes.
That kind of tests are already there, should we add more tests.
I don't understand how Codecov works.
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
It seems that the handbook assumes that the relative orders are prime in the induced pcgs algorithm. I tried to look more carefully where it would be needed but could not find such a place. So it looks like the test is not necessary for the algorithm.
I don't understand either how Codecov works but perhaps we should not worry too much.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
So it looks like the test is not necessary for the algorithm.
So, Is it good to go?
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
I think it can be merged now.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Thanks!
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
The Sphinx documentation now passes the tests. Have you built the html? Does it look ok?
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Yes, it looks good to me.
Should I share some screenshots?
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
That would be helpful for me.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Ok!
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
_
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
Thanks. That looks ok. I left a comment on relative_order that would probably look better as upright text.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Okay.
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
There is one thing that I forgot to mention. Namely, single backticks generate LaTeX (and mathit) in SymPy's Sphinx configuration. That makes code like pcgs and pc_series[4] look different from what we would want. We should use double backticks instead.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Ok, I'll push the changes by tonight.
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
It looks like the rst file is ready to be included though I could not make the html. My sphinx version (ubuntu 16.04) may be too old.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Do you need few screenshots as per above changes.
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
Can you send the page on the computation of polycyclic presentation?
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Have a look!
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
Thanks. That looks ok to me.
I think it can be merged.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Thanks!
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
There is one more thing that you could work with. It would be useful to have more information in the docstrings of classes and their methods. In particular, "Parameters" could be added. We generally follow the numpy conventions as explained here.
There are some differences. Double backticks instead of single ones for variables, for example, and ===== for underlining (with exactly the same length).
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
Ok, I'll try!
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
@jksuom I've opened a PR on extending the docstrings of polycyclic groups. Have a look sympy/sympy#17476
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
Ok, thanks.
Divyanshu Thakur
@divyanshu132
\{ is generating error, can't we use escape sequence in docstrings?
Kalevi Suominen
@jksuom
It should be possible if the docstring is raw: r""" ... """.