-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
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/save cv folds #262
Conversation
config_dir = join(_my_dir, 'configs') | ||
|
||
cfg_file = join(config_dir, 'test_save_cv_folds.cfg') | ||
os.unlink(cfg_file) |
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.
Just wondering: Is there some specific reason we're using unlink here as opposed to remove or is it just because that's what has been used in the past? The docs say that it's identical to remove and it seems like the naming is clearer there.
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's just a consistency thing. We have been using unlink
in the past.
@@ -363,6 +365,9 @@ def _parse_config_file(config_path): | |||
# default number of cross-validation folds | |||
cv_folds = 10 | |||
|
|||
# whether or not to save the cv fold ids | |||
save_cv_folds = config.get("Input", "save_cv_folds") |
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.
I think this belongs in Output
, since this an option that relates to what we're outputting, and not to what we're given.
This looks pretty good to me. I am going to merge it tomorrow unless anyone else has an objection. |
…v_folds Feature/save cv folds
Add a new config option that saves information about which example was in which test fold during cross validation experiments. The name of the file is fixed for each experiment.