standardizing libpysal/weights docs

[jGaboardi]

This PR focuses on standardizing the libpysal/weights/* docs. See #290, #291, pysal/pysal#1174.

@sjsrey This is ready for review. It is 95% docstring standardization and 5% logic/code streaming. I have also added several functions to the api docs that had been left out earlier.

Shall I rebuild the actual doc html files or leave that until #290 is fully complete (or even next release)?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #319 (c8c27b1) into main (8116db6) will increase coverage by 0.1%.
The diff coverage is 69.6%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main    #319     +/-   ##
=======================================
+ Coverage   79.9%   80.0%   +0.1%     
=======================================
  Files        122     122             
  Lines      13225   13275     +50     
=======================================
+ Hits       10563   10614     +51     
+ Misses      2662    2661      -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
libpysal/cg/ops/_accessors.py	80.0% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/ops/_shapely.py	46.7% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/ops/tabular.py	55.8% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/ops/tests/test_shapely.py	28.8% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/polygonQuadTreeStructure.py	85.7% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/rtree.py	91.0% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/sphere.py	72.6% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/standalone.py	91.5% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/tests/test_geoJSON.py	97.2% <ø> (ø)
libpysal/cg/tests/test_locators.py	96.2% <ø> (ø)
... and 62 more

[jGaboardi]

@sjsrey This PR is ready for review. Windows failures for Python 3.6 only due to the current issue upstream with fiona. This PR is independent of that issue.

[jGaboardi]

@sjsrey All tests green again.

[martinfleis]

I have no clue how to review this beast.

@jGaboardi I know it is late now but it would be better to split changes of docstrings from blackening the code to different PRs to know what to look for in the review. This is just impossible to review at this point.

Are there any changes to look for? Anything code-related that is not linting?

[jGaboardi]

I have no clue how to review this beast.

@jGaboardi I know it is late now but it would be better to split changes of docstrings from blackening the code to different PRs to know what to look for in the review. This is just impossible to review at this point.

Are there any changes to look for? Anything code-related that is not linting?

Yeah, this thing got a tad unwieldy over the years. I will looking into splitting it up as time permits. Probably start with black only in one PR then possibly even ruff (though I suspect ruff will catch some more-than-minor stuff in our code base here...). After that, I'll look back into the docstring standardization. Let's leave this PR open for now until all the constituent pieces are merged (or rejected).

[martinfleis]

Okay. Try to split black and ruff into different PRs. Ruff tends to involve code changes that need review while black can be merged directly.

[jGaboardi]

Yep, that was my plan. Maybe even ruff only 1 or 2 files at a time depending on the amount of changes made.

[martinfleis]

You will have to do ruff for the whole codebase to make it pass CI