Fix code example formatting in docs

[sfc-gh-jreini]

Description

Mostly admonitions, fixing existing and adding where they should exist

Other details good to know for developers

Please include any other details of this change useful for TruLens developers.

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to
  not work as expected)
• New Tests
• This change includes re-generated golden test results
• This change requires a documentation update

---

Important

This pull request improves documentation by adding admonitions to code examples for better formatting and clarity across multiple files.

• Documentation:
  • Added admonitions to code examples in various documentation files for better formatting and clarity.
  • Affected files include feedback_aggregation.md, feedback_anatomy.md, feedback_selectors/index.md, and several others.
• Misc:
  • No changes to code functionality or logic.
  • No new features or breaking changes introduced.

^{This description was created by for a1b682d. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to a1b682d in 48 seconds

More details

• Looked at 1239 lines of code in 15 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/component_guides/evaluation/feedback_aggregation.md:18

• Draft comment:
  The text mentions aggregate(numpy.min) but the code example uses np.mean. Ensure consistency between the text and the code example.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The PR aims to fix code example formatting in the documentation by using admonitions. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that code examples are properly formatted and highlighted. This improves readability and consistency in the documentation. The changes are straightforward and do not affect the functionality of the codebase.

2. docs/component_guides/evaluation/feedback_anatomy.md:18

• Draft comment:
  The text mentions aggregate(numpy.mean) but the code example uses np.mean. Ensure consistency between the text and the code example.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The PR aims to fix code example formatting in the documentation by using admonitions. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that code examples are properly formatted and highlighted. This improves readability and consistency in the documentation. The changes are straightforward and do not affect the functionality of the codebase.

3. docs/component_guides/evaluation/feedback_selectors/selecting_components.md:56

• Draft comment:
  The text mentions evaluating items separately or collecting them into an array for evaluation with .collect(). Ensure that the explanation matches the code example provided.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The PR aims to fix code example formatting in the documentation by using admonitions. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that code examples are properly formatted and highlighted. This improves readability and consistency in the documentation. The changes are straightforward and do not affect the functionality of the codebase.

4. docs/component_guides/evaluation/running_feedback_functions/existing_data.md:15

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that the explanation of running feedback functions on existing data is clear and matches the code example provided.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The PR aims to fix code example formatting in the documentation by using admonitions. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that code examples are properly formatted and highlighted. This improves readability and consistency in the documentation. The changes are straightforward and do not affect the functionality of the codebase.

5. docs/component_guides/evaluation/running_feedback_functions/existing_data.md:30

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that the explanation of using TruVirtual to ingest and evaluate logs is clear and matches the code example provided.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The PR aims to fix code example formatting in the documentation by using admonitions. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that code examples are properly formatted and highlighted. This improves readability and consistency in the documentation. The changes are straightforward and do not affect the functionality of the codebase.

Workflow ID: wflow_UK2c3e6pHDIlIpUI

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.