Add projection and region to grdview docstring

[maxrjones]

Description of proposed changes

The projection parameter is included in the list of aliases but not the docstring for grdview. This PR adds the projection description to the docstring.

Fixes #

Reminders

• Run make format and make check to make sure the code follows the style guide.
• Add tests for new features or tests that would have caught the bug that you're fixing.
• Add new public functions/methods/classes to doc/api/index.rst.
• Write detailed docstrings for all functions/methods.
• If adding new functionality, add an example to docstrings or tutorials.

Slash Commands

You can write slash commands (/command) in the first line of a comment to perform
specific operations. Supported slash commands are:

• /format: automatically format and lint the code
• /test-gmt-dev: run full tests on the latest GMT development version

[weiji14]

Oh wait, actually, we're missing the region (R) docstring as well for this!

[weiji14]

So region (-R) isn't actually a required argument for grdview according to https://docs.generic-mapping-tools.org/6.2.0rc2/grdview.html, but using {R} in the docstring here says that it is:

Wondering if we should edit the wording slightly at

pygmt/pygmt/helpers/decorators.py

Lines 17 to 21 in 01e2feb

	"R": r"""
	region : str or list
	*Required if this is the first plot command*.
	*xmin/xmax/ymin/ymax*\ [**+r**][**+u**\ *unit*].
	Specify the :doc:`region </tutorials/regions>` of interest.""",

Can open a separate issue/PR for this.

[maxrjones]

Wondering if we should edit the wording slightly

I think the current wording is accurate for most plotting modules, so maybe I can just not use the replacement text for grdview but keep the wording from decorators.py as is to not affect other method docs?

[maxrjones]

Is the latest version OK with you, @weiji14?

[weiji14]

Is the latest version OK with you, @weiji14?

Yep, looks good! I like that it explicitly specifies zmin/zmax too. Remember to change the PR title to include 'region' before merging.

[maxrjones]

Sounds good. One more question - when the checks fail for reasons clearly unrelated to the PR (like now), do you prefer for me to re-run all checks or admin merge the PR?

[weiji14]

when the checks fail for reasons clearly unrelated to the PR (like now), do you prefer for me to re-run all checks or admin merge the PR?

I would just admin merge in this case to conserve CI resources.