Fix #8340: Remove incorrect minus sign in rotate_range documentation

[yunhaoli24]

Summary

• Fixed incorrect minus sign in rotate_range parameter documentation
• The documentation incorrectly showed uniform[-rotate_range[i][0], rotate_range[i][1])
• The actual implementation uses uniform(f[0], f[1]) without negation on the first parameter
• Fixed across 7 locations in both array and dictionary transforms

Changes

• Updated documentation in monai/transforms/spatial/array.py:
  • RandAffineGrid (line 1851)
  • RandAffine (line 2389)
  • Rand2DElastic (line 2659)
  • Rand3DElastic (line 2827)
• Updated documentation in monai/transforms/spatial/dictionary.py:
  • RandAffined (line 1064)
  • Rand2DElasticd (line 1249)
  • Rand3DElasticd (line 1399)

Types of changes

• Documentation update

Fixes #8340

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f1741b55-a68a-4ec4-a8e0-c41b1e87a7fd

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f87d2b5 and 2ab5653.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• monai/transforms/spatial/array.py
• monai/transforms/spatial/dictionary.py

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• monai/transforms/spatial/array.py

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• monai/transforms/spatial/dictionary.py

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Docstrings were corrected to fix the rotation parameter range description across spatial transforms. The updated docs remove an incorrect negation so rotation values are documented as sampled from uniform[rotate_range[i][0], rotate_range[i][1]) instead of uniform[-rotate_range[i][0], rotate_range[i][1]). Changes touch array-based transforms (RandAffineGrid, RandAffine, Rand2DElastic) and dictionary-based transforms (RandAffined, Rand2DElasticd, Rand3DElasticd). No code logic, signatures, or behavior were modified.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: fixing an incorrect minus sign in rotate_range documentation, matching the actual changeset.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is complete with summary, specific changes, affected locations, and change type marked appropriately against the provided template.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR fully addresses issue #8340 by removing the erroneous minus sign from rotate_range documentation across all seven identified locations in both array and dictionary transforms.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are strictly documentation updates to rotate_range parameter descriptions with no code logic changes, directly addressing the linked issue scope.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[ericspod]

Hi @yunhaoli24 thanks for the update. Please check that the line below many of your changes should be updated too, eg. If not, uniform[-rotate_range[i], rotate_range[i]) which I think should not have the negation either

[yunhaoli24]

Hi @ericspod, thanks for the review!

I've checked the second line and the negative sign there is actually correct. Looking at the implementation in _get_rand_param (line 1908):

elif f is not None:
    out_param.append(self.R.uniform(-f, f))  # single value case

When rotate_range is a single value (e.g., rotate_range=0.3), the code uses uniform(-f, f), so the negative sign in the second line is correct and should be kept.

The first line's negative sign was wrong because it describes the pair case:

if issequenceiterable(f):
    out_param.append(self.R.uniform(f[0], f[1]))  # pair case - no negation

My fix only removed the incorrect negative sign from the first line (pair case), while keeping the correct negative sign in the second line (single value case).