DOC: Docstring script to not require ending period for bullet points

[EdAbati]

• closes Fix Validation Script to Not Error Out if Bullet Points Don't End with Period #25461
• passes git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff

This PR tries to solve the issue #25461 .

I thought that the validator should check that the last line of the parameter description is a part of a bullet point before raising the error PR09.

In order to do that, I had to add an extra method in the Docstring class that return a parameter description line by line (in a list). This is because Docstring.parameter_desc() returns the description as 1 string.

Please let me know how I can improve this or if I did not consider something.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #25786 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #25786      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.26%   91.26%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         172      172              
  Lines       52965    52965              
==========================================
+ Hits        48337    48338       +1     
+ Misses       4628     4627       -1

Flag	Coverage Δ
#multiple	89.82% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
#single	41.74% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pandas/util/testing.py	89.44% <0%> (+0.09%)	⬆️

---

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 c975fc4...9bb2fa4. Read the comment docs.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #25786 into master will decrease coverage by 0.98%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #25786      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.02%   92.04%   -0.99%     
==========================================
  Files         182      180       -2     
  Lines       50257    50713     +456     
==========================================
- Hits        46750    46677      -73     
- Misses       3507     4036     +529

Flag	Coverage Δ
#multiple	90.68% <ø> (-1.01%)	⬇️
#single	41.88% <ø> (-0.62%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pandas/io/gbq.py	88.88% <0%> (-11.12%)	⬇️
pandas/io/excel/_openpyxl.py	84.71% <0%> (-3.23%)	⬇️
pandas/util/_decorators.py	92.13% <0%> (-3.22%)	⬇️
pandas/core/dtypes/cast.py	90.72% <0%> (-2.34%)	⬇️
pandas/io/formats/printing.py	86.72% <0%> (-2.11%)	⬇️
pandas/core/indexing.py	93.48% <0%> (-1.55%)	⬇️
pandas/core/dtypes/common.py	96.35% <0%> (-1.44%)	⬇️
pandas/core/arrays/categorical.py	95.92% <0%> (-1.27%)	⬇️
pandas/core/groupby/ops.py	96% <0%> (-0.92%)	⬇️
pandas/core/internals/construction.py	95.95% <0%> (-0.84%)	⬇️
... and 163 more

---

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 f6a5dd4...43ae6ea. Read the comment docs.

[WillAyd]

Please add test(s)

[pep8speaks]

Hello @EdAbati! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2019-10-24 22:25:43 UTC

[WillAyd]

@EdAbati as mentioned if you can add tests will take a look

[EdAbati]

Hi @WillAyd , sorry for the delay.

I just added a couple of tests.
Please let me know if and how I can improved this.

Thank you very much

[WillAyd]

Tests look good! I think the implementation can be simplified / made clearer

[WillAyd]

@EdAbati this is moving in the right direction but still needs to be simplified. Anything which isn't explicitly tested and unnecessary conversion of objects to different container types needs to be removed

[jreback]

can you merge master

[EdAbati]

Hi @WillAyd,
I was wondering if you had the chance to have a look at this,
Is there anything I should improve/change?

[WillAyd]

Thanks for the ping and sorry forgot about this. I’m traveling the next two weeks but will try to fit another review round in then.

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:47 PM, EdAbati ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @WillAyd, I was wondering if you had the chance to have a look at this, Is there anything I should improve/change? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[WillAyd]

Tests look great! Just want to keep simplifying the implementation a bit but almost there.

Thanks for sticking with this

[jbrockmendel]

@EdAbati can you rebase

[TomAugspurger]

@EdAbati CI should be fixed now if you can merge master again.

[WillAyd]

Hi @EdAbati I've been on vacation the past few weeks so haven't looked in detail. Back in a few days will review within the next week

[jreback]

what is status here?

[WillAyd]

Cool thanks - this is starting to look simpler. Right now I don't think 100% accurate but an improvement over where we are, so might just move forward with it and leave rough edges to a follow up.

[datapythonista]

Sorry for the late review @EdAbati, didn't see this before. Can you fix the conflicts and have a look at the comments.

[datapythonista]

The PR I mentioned has been merged already, you can open this PR in numpydoc now.