Fixed typos, fixed one incomplete doc strings, etc.

[jt-lab]

Fixed typos, one incomplete doc strings (see formula.py l19; is this correct?), made docstring punctuation and emphasis (more) consistent:
Single line docstrings end with '.'
Multi-line part docstrings' first lines are "titles", without period at their ends
Further paragraphs end with '.'
All lines under 'parameters', 'returns' etc. end with '.'
This scheme was derived from the most common cases in the current version, and I have tried to consistently apply it where there were differences.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (2d4b260) 89.83% compared to head (4c71cc6) 89.83%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
bambi/model_components.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #765   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.83%   89.83%           
=======================================
  Files          45       45           
  Lines        3768     3768           
=======================================
  Hits         3385     3385           
  Misses        383      383           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[tomicapretto]

Hi @jt-lab thanks a lot for taking care of this!

I think double backticks (``) are not needed anymore since we're using Quarto and not sphinx for the docs. Could you adapt those cases to use single backticks? If you want, you can also try to build the documentation locally and see if it works. But if you can't or simply don't want, just let me know and I'll check it on my end.

Thanks again!

[tomicapretto]

one incomplete doc strings (see formula.py l19; is this correct?)

yes that is correct :)

[tomicapretto]

Hi @jt-lab, do you think you have time to incorporate my comments? I could do it for you if you want, so we get this merged :)

[jt-lab]

Hi Tomás, yes I can, I have done some of it already locally. Sorry for the delay. I'll be on a conference next week but after it I can finish it. How will it merge most smoothly? Can I pull the most recent version despite there already being a PR based on some old version?

…

On Mar 17, 2024, 15:10, at 15:10, "Tomás Capretto" ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @jt-lab, do you think you have time to incorporate my comments? I could do it for you if you want, so we get this merged :) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #765 (comment) You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Message ID: ***@***.***>

[tomicapretto]

Yes, I think you can pull the most recent version. Maybe there will be some conflicts. Let me know if you need any help :)