Missing material modifications in docs
See original GitHub issueThere is a table in section 2.2.4 of the documentation that describes the material modifications available across all the material classes in the framework:
This table is missing entries for the following material classes:
- lithium
- mox
- uraniumOxide
- uZr
The entries are drawn programmatically in blueprints.rst
by looking at all subclasses of Material
:
The problem appears to be that it does not recursively look into all subclasses of Material
. For instance, the classes above are subclassed from:
- lithium – material.Fluid
- mox – UraniumOxide
- uraniumOxide – material.FuelMaterial
- uZr – material.FuelMaterial
This piece of the documentation should be updated to draw the entries recursively.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments:5 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Find what's changed in a file - Google Docs Editors Help
On your computer, open a document, spreadsheet, or presentation. · At the top, click File and then Version history and then See version...
Read more >Restore a past version in Google Docs - YouTube
Restore a past version in Google Docs. Learn more → https://goo.gle/2lrXt6B ...
Read more >Google Docs How to Recover an Erased Paper or Work
Best data recovery software : https://bit.ly/3IxCapK50% off now : https://bit.ly/3rLcoZpWas the video helpful? Want to return the favor.
Read more >Why can I not see revision history of shared Google Docs ...
If the See revision history is greyed out or you can't select it, the document you are viewing does not allow you to...
Read more >Documentation for version 4-11.4 of material ui is missing
Since the rollout of MUI v5.0.0-rc.1 all the doc pages of v4 other than v4.
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
I haven’t forgotten about this ticket. It appears that inside the
if numArgs > 1:
condition, we can do something like:And do the same
if numArgs > 1:
checking again. I just haven’t decided the cleanest way to write the resultant two loops (or the final table) yet.It’ll happen this week.
Yeah, at some point we will have to move the API along, and fully deprecate those method signatures. When that happens the code (and the docs) will be cleaner.
Set your watches for deprecation day.