-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feature: Add dataprocessor. #1256
Feature: Add dataprocessor. #1256
Conversation
Benchmark is done. Checkout the benchmark result page. Benchmark diff v0.6.0 vs. mainParametrized benchmark signatures: BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(index_dependent, grouped, weight)
Benchmark diff main vs. PRParametrized benchmark signatures: BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(index_dependent, grouped, weight)
|
92c0927
to
2cecc05
Compare
e78d409
to
c4629ba
Compare
c4629ba
to
b4248d0
Compare
2b85d3d
to
4896747
Compare
c897f82
to
fecbfdf
Compare
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1256 +/- ##
=======================================
+ Coverage 88.3% 88.4% +0.1%
=======================================
Files 104 107 +3
Lines 5100 5145 +45
Branches 852 853 +1
=======================================
+ Hits 4505 4550 +45
Misses 478 478
Partials 117 117
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
fecbfdf
to
d49cf9d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice start, but I'd like to see a bit more meaning full tests.
The CorrectBaselineValue method is ok, just needs more tests.
The CorrectBaseLineAverage case needs revision, and more extensive tests.
cb0c70a
to
9210faa
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks like a good start, just got my usual nitpicks.
I guess for now there be no other way to compose pipelines than copypasting a file together or combining the action attributes?
compose_pipeline = PreProcessingPipeline(pl1.actions[:-1] + pl2.actions[-2:])
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sound something else (sorry for not catching it before 😢)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me now, thanks for adding the preprocessing. 🎉
1ea0664
to
dd020ed
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It may not be the most intuitive way of doing preprocessing, but it works (for the limited cases currently defined), and it doesn't conflict with anything, so I'm ok with merging it in.
I do think improvements are possible, but that can be tackled in a future PR.
dd020ed
to
9473bf5
Compare
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 0 Bugs No Coverage information |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Re-approve changes following dropped commit.
Adds a (chainable) PreProcessingPipeline with (initial) support for CorrectBaselineAverage and CorrectBaselineValue.