Rewriting advancedvi docs

[Red-Portal]

Documentations for the 0.3.0 rewrite.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 45.00000% with 11 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.81%. Comparing base (9ebfc3f) to head (75f2cd3).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

❗ Current head 75f2cd3 differs from pull request most recent head c157787

Please upload reports for the commit c157787 to get more accurate results.

Files	Patch %	Lines
ext/AdvancedVIBijectorsExt.jl	50.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
src/utils.jl	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #53      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.92%   81.81%   -4.12%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines         199      209      +10     
==========================================
  Hits          171      171              
- Misses         28       38      +10     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9328347532

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 86.364%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 7396968164:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	171
Relevant Lines:	198

---

💛 - Coveralls

[yebai]

Thanks @Red-Portal -- I added some minor comments below. Overall, it looks very good.

[yebai]

I suggest we inline this function and add a comment, instead of creating an additional utility that can be used only once.

[Red-Portal]

I was thinking of using this as an abstraction for the future, where we get to use NamedTuple-variate random variables. It would also make it easier to track where we explicitly assume which axes are what, which I think could be useful for maintenance.

[Red-Portal]

@yebai Thanks for your review! I tried to address most things, I think we are finally good to go?

[yebai]

Thanks @Red-Portal!