Mast doc cleanup

[tinuademargaret]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1975 (376b0bb) into main (f56d13a) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1975   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   63.08%   63.08%           
=======================================
  Files         131      131           
  Lines       17005    17005           
=======================================
  Hits        10728    10728           
  Misses       6277     6277           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f56d13a...376b0bb. Read the comment docs.

[ceb8]

@bsipocz I rebased, and then also went through and fixed the code block indentation issue.

Now it's passing all the tests, but there is a weird extra code block bar at the top of each example (https://astroquery--1975.org.readthedocs.build/en/1975/mast/mast.html#module-astroquery.mast) has this come up with any of Tinuade's other PRs like this? I don't know how to fix it because all the syntax looks right. Ideas?

[bsipocz]

I don't know how to fix it because all the syntax looks right. Ideas?

@ceb8 - yes, you need to remove all the .. code-block:: python lines from the docs, that should fix this empty cell problem.

[ceb8]

@bsipocz Thank you!!!!

[bsipocz]

Now it's passing all the tests

You mean remotes, too? I still see failures with the rst file.

[ceb8]

You mean remotes, too? I still see failures with the rst file.

Working on the remotes right now. Stay tuned.

[ceb8]

@bsipocz Should be good to go now.

[bsipocz]

This may be valuable to keep, as it shouldn't really change that often.

[ceb8]

OK, I was unsure about ones like this because the point of the function is to decouple the list of missions from the codebase so that when new missions are added the astroquery code doesn't have to be updated every time. But also, you are correct, this doesn't change that often.

[bsipocz]

Is this expected to change over time? Basically, I would keep everything output tested that is not expected to change as new data is added to the archive from ongoing missions.

[ceb8]

Yes, I think it is likely to change, the archive's linking between products is getting more sophisticated, with the result that more products will likely be returned from the query by obsid. Also the obsids are not guaranteed to stay consistent over time (which is maybe an argument for testing the output anyway so we know when to update the example).

[bsipocz]

why switch to skip?

[ceb8]

Because even though the output includes the max results warning the testing infrastructure considers it an unexpected exception. And obviously I don't want to change the example because the point is to show the user the max results warning.

[eerovaher]

pytest-doctestplus provides a directive for these kinds of situations, see https://github.com/astropy/pytest-doctestplus#showing-warnings

[bsipocz]

I'm afraid this now has to be rebased as #2095 has been merged.

[bsipocz]

I went ahead and fixed the remaining examples, some were the new mission ones that needed the remote-data directive. Also, some more examples needed fixes, and I also did some minor cleanups. If tests pass, this is ready to go.

[bsipocz]

Also, I think the mission examples should not be ignored, but we cannot yet test them in the docs until the bug in #2313 is not fixed.

[bsipocz]

Thanks @tinumide and @ceb8!