Hi,
I’d like to improve the NNX API reference docs (not Linen). While working on a smaller docs issue (#5107), I noticed a few recurring problems across the NNX API reference: incomplete indexing/toctrees, inconsistent Sphinx cross-references vs code formatting, and missing/unclear docstrings for user-facing symbols. Some pages also look copied from older docs and don’t match the current NNX surface.
Example:
flax.nnx.unflatten in the graph section has a kwarg outer_index_outer_ref=None, but its docstring refers to index_ref_cache (which doesn’t exist).
To keep review manageable, I’ll do this as a series of small PRs, going section by section in the API Reference page. To keep the scope manageable I'll focus on docs + docstrings only (no behavioral changes).
Is it ok if I send small PRs starting with flax.nnx.graph?
Thanks!
Hi,
I’d like to improve the NNX API reference docs (not Linen). While working on a smaller docs issue (#5107), I noticed a few recurring problems across the NNX API reference: incomplete indexing/toctrees, inconsistent Sphinx cross-references vs code formatting, and missing/unclear docstrings for user-facing symbols. Some pages also look copied from older docs and don’t match the current NNX surface.
Example:
flax.nnx.unflattenin the graph section has a kwargouter_index_outer_ref=None, but its docstring refers toindex_ref_cache(which doesn’t exist).To keep review manageable, I’ll do this as a series of small PRs, going section by section in the API Reference page. To keep the scope manageable I'll focus on docs + docstrings only (no behavioral changes).
Is it ok if I send small PRs starting with
flax.nnx.graph?Thanks!