docs: remove skpkg template files and mention of Brookhaven lab in index.rst#71
docs: remove skpkg template files and mention of Brookhaven lab in index.rst#71sbillinge merged 3 commits intodiffpy:migrationfrom
Conversation
pyproject.toml
Outdated
|
|
||
| [project.scripts] | ||
| pyobjcryst = "pyobjcryst.app:main" | ||
| pyobjcryst = "pyobjcryst.pyobjcryst_app:main" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If no app exists should we simply remove this code-block ([project.scripts])?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to me that the pyobjcryst_app.py file is what the project.scripts is meant to call. It utilizes argparsers to parse CLI commands from the user and everything. Here are the contents of the file, so please let me know if you still want the [project.scripts] code block deleted!
import argparse
from pyobjcryst.version import __version__ # noqa
def main():
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(
prog="pyobjcryst",
description=(
"Python bindings to the ObjCryst++ library.\n\n"
"For more information, visit: "
"https://github.com/diffpy/pyobjcryst/"
),
formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter,
)
parser.add_argument(
"--version",
action="store_true",
help="Show the program's version number and exit",
)
args = parser.parse_args()
if args.version:
print(f"pyobjcryst {__version__}")
else:
# Default behavior when no arguments are given
parser.print_help()
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is just the standard one that is produced by scikit-package. I think we can delete this
|
@sbillinge ready for review |
sbillinge
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please see my inline comments. Also, please could you go through the readme and make sure everything there is correct?
pyproject.toml
Outdated
|
|
||
| [project.scripts] | ||
| pyobjcryst = "pyobjcryst.app:main" | ||
| pyobjcryst = "pyobjcryst.pyobjcryst_app:main" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If no app exists should we simply remove this code-block ([project.scripts])?
|
@sbillinge ready for review |

What problem does this PR address?
Addresses the request in the following comment: #67 (comment)
What should the reviewer(s) do?
Please check my modifications.