Conversation
Manuel-Knepper
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this just GitHub being weird, or did you not actually rename the 'GrowBikeNet' directory to 'growbikenet'?
Same for me. I think the folder still needs to be renamed. |
| " \"bike\": 2\n", | ||
| " }\n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| " create_plots(routed_edges_gdf,seed_points_snapped,streetcolor,edgecolor,seedcolor,lws)\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Plots are being created even if export_plots is FALSE, if export_video is TRUE. Add an if clause to check for export_plots
| "metadata": {}, | ||
| "outputs": [], | ||
| "source": [ | ||
| "def run_growbikenet(\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the reason for calling it run_growbikenet and not just growbikenet? "grow" is already the thing to do and an imperative, and "run_" seems to make it more complicated/unnatural, to me at least.
I imagine in practice it would be used like this:
import growbikenet as gbn
a_edges = gbn.growbikenet(
"Manhattan",
proj_crs = '3857',
export_plots = True,
export_video = True
)
I would suggest to do it like this, but open to discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I realize this would need an _api.py so we dont need to load .functions. Much cleaner I think. Like here: https://github.com/NERDSITU/superblockify/blob/main/superblockify/_api.py
|
@Manuel-Knepper my blessings to you for finishing this up :) next steps before merging (in hopefully meaningful order):
|
Description
this solves #32 (GrowBikeNet > growbikenet) and contains a first draft as basis for #23 and #29 (main growbikenet function). Still a couple of open design choices TBD. No docs/tests added yet.
Related Issue
Fixes #(issue number)
Type of Change
How Has This Been Tested?
Test configuration:
Screenshots (if applicable)
Checklist
Additional Notes
none