Skip to content

Add dpnp.tensor documentation#2844

Open
vlad-perevezentsev wants to merge 351 commits intoinclude-dpctl-tensorfrom
update_tensor_docs
Open

Add dpnp.tensor documentation#2844
vlad-perevezentsev wants to merge 351 commits intoinclude-dpctl-tensorfrom
update_tensor_docs

Conversation

@vlad-perevezentsev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@vlad-perevezentsev vlad-perevezentsev commented Apr 10, 2026

This PR provides Sphinx documentation for the dpnp.tensor module, adapted from dpctl.
It also updates the dpnp.tensor docstrings in Sphinx style and replaces references to dpctl.tensor with dpnp.tensor in error messages and comments.

  • API reference pages covering all dpnp.tensor public API: array object, creation, elementwise, accumulation, manipulation, indexing, linear algebra, searching, set, sorting, statistical, printing, utility functions, data types, constants, and inspection
  • Autosummary templates (usm_ndarray, cython_class, elementwise) for proper rendering of classes and elementwise functions
  • User guides for tensor introduction, oneAPI execution model, and DLPack exchange
  • Fix for usm_ndarray docstring rendering issues
  • Have you provided a meaningful PR description?
  • Have you added a test, reproducer or referred to an issue with a reproducer?
  • Have you tested your changes locally for CPU and GPU devices?
  • Have you made sure that new changes do not introduce compiler warnings?
  • Have you checked performance impact of proposed changes?
  • Have you added documentation for your changes, if necessary?
  • Have you added your changes to the changelog?

@ndgrigorian
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I am not convinced the changes make sense, since I think it would be smart to update dpnp documentation to align with dpctl documentation in the future, using furo style. In which case this will have to be rolled back.

If this change is going to be made, as hard to manage as it may be, it should probably be a single commit... this way, it would be easy to revert, so we don't have to go through all of the manual work.

@antonwolfy any thoughts?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants