813 better error handling #936

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-15T21:45:19Z

Pull Request Description

Fixes #813 by

Removing raise_errors in AutoMLSearch and replacing it with more detailed logging of errors in _compute_cv_scores. We will explore adding logic to stop the search, e.g. all pipelines in a batch fail on the primary objective, in future PRs. See (Raise an error if all pipelines produce nan scores in automl #922)
Addresses the problem of pipelines failing too silently (mentioned in Issue Raise an error if all pipelines produce nan scores in automl #922) by creating the PipelineScoreError exception.

Demo:

What the user sees

What the logs look like

Note that the hyperparameters and stacktrace are being logged.

After creating the pull request: in order to pass the changelog_updated check you will need to update the "Future Release" section of docs/source/changelog.rst to include this pull request by adding :pr:123.

codecov · 2020-07-15T21:55:35Z

Codecov Report

Merging #936 into main will increase coverage by 0.20%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #936      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   99.66%   99.87%   +0.20%     
==========================================
  Files         171      171              
  Lines        8771     8783      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits         8742     8772      +30     
+ Misses         29       11      -18

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
evalml/pipelines/binary_classification_pipeline.py	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
evalml/automl/automl_search.py	`99.55% <100.00%> (+0.47%)`	⬆️
evalml/exceptions/exceptions.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
evalml/pipelines/classification_pipeline.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
evalml/pipelines/regression_pipeline.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
evalml/tests/automl_tests/test_automl.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
evalml/tests/pipeline_tests/test_pipelines.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (+0.88%)`	⬆️
.../automl_tests/test_automl_search_classification.py	`100.00% <0.00%> (+0.45%)`	⬆️
... and 6 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d710bc7...17d2615. Read the comment docs.

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-15T22:02:18Z

evalml/tests/automl_tests/test_automl.py

@@ -72,11 +72,12 @@ def test_search_results(X_y_regression, X_y_binary, X_y_multi, automl_type):
        index=['id', 'pipeline_name', 'score', 'high_variance_cv', 'parameters']))


-@patch('evalml.pipelines.BinaryClassificationPipeline.score')
-@patch('evalml.pipelines.BinaryClassificationPipeline.fit')
+@patch('evalml.pipelines.ClassificationPipeline.score')


Made this change because both multiclass and binary problems are tested here.

Hm, looks like we're only using the X_y_binary fixture though, could you update this for the multiclass test (or just move it out / parametrize it)?

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-15T22:03:24Z

evalml/tests/automl_tests/test_automl.py

@@ -128,15 +129,9 @@ def test_pipeline_fit_raises(mock_fit, X_y_binary, caplog):
    msg = 'all your model are belong to us'
    mock_fit.side_effect = Exception(msg)
    X, y = X_y_binary
-    automl = AutoMLSearch(problem_type='binary', max_pipelines=1)


Deleted this bit because raise_errors does not exist.

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-15T22:05:42Z

evalml/tests/automl_tests/test_automl.py

@@ -157,22 +152,17 @@ def test_pipeline_score_raises(mock_score, X_y_binary, caplog):
    mock_score.side_effect = Exception(msg)
    X, y = X_y_binary
    automl = AutoMLSearch(problem_type='binary', max_pipelines=1)
-    with pytest.raises(Exception, match=msg):


Same here. I deleted this because raise_errors doesn't exist.

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-15T22:08:40Z

evalml/tests/automl_tests/test_automl.py

+    cv_scores_all = pipeline_results[0]["cv_data"][0]["all_objective_scores"]
+    objective_scores = {o.name: cv_scores_all[o.name] for o in [automl.objective] + automl.additional_objectives}
+
+    assert np.isnan(list(objective_scores.values())).all()


Whenever _compute_cv_scores raises an exception that is not of type PipelineScoreError, alI the scores are set to nan (because the exception happened before scoring). I modified this check to reflect that.

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-15T22:19:14Z

evalml/pipelines/binary_classification_pipeline.py

-        if predictions.ndim > 1:
-            predictions = predictions.iloc[:, 1]
-        return ClassificationPipeline._score(X, y, predictions, objective)
+    def _compute_predictions(self, X, objectives):


See my comment in PipelineBase._score explaining the reasoning behind this change.

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-15T22:21:10Z

evalml/automl/automl_search.py

+                logger.info(intro_message)
+                logger.info(score_message)
+                logger.info(filename_message)
+                logger.debug(hyperparameter_message)


Decided to log the hyperparameters at the debug level to not clutter stdout.

Nice

I'm having trouble tracking how the declarations match up with the log call order. Can we just do direct logging out for some of these? Like logger.info(f"\t\t\tFold {i}: Please check {logger.handlers[1].baseFilename} for the current hyperparameters and stack trace."), instead of including the intermediate variable

Definitely.

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-15T23:59:38Z

evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py

@@ -231,17 +237,36 @@ def score(self, X, y, objectives):
        """

    @staticmethod
-    def _score(X, y, predictions, objective):
+    def _score(X, y, predictions, predicted_probabilities, objectives, is_objective_suitable=None):


Since Pipelines will no longer suppress errors, the old implementation of _score was no longer doing anything. I decided to repurpose it to store the logic for creating the PipelineScoreError in one place for classification and regression pipelines.

I ran into two obstacles:

The old _score implementation for binary classification pipelines had some logic for collapsing the last dim of the predictions. I fixed this issue by moving that logic to _compute_predictions in BinaryClassificationPipeline.

In regression problems, we check if the objective has score_needs_proba set to True and if so, raise a ValueError. I replaced this functionality with the is_objective_suitable parameter. But maybe we should just get rid of this check when PR Have automl search raise config errors in init instead of search #933 gets merged?

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-16T00:00:21Z

evalml/pipelines/regression_pipeline.py

@@ -27,13 +26,11 @@ def score(self, X, y, objectives):
        if not isinstance(y, pd.Series):
            y = pd.Series(y)

-        objectives = [get_objective(o) for o in objectives]
-        scores = OrderedDict()
+        def is_objective_suitable_for_regression(objective):


See my comment in PipelineBase._score explaining this change.

freddyaboulton · 2020-07-16T00:16:18Z

evalml/pipelines/regression_pipeline.py

        y_predicted = self.predict(X)
-        for objective in objectives:
-            if objective.score_needs_proba:
-                raise ValueError("Objective `{}` does not support score_needs_proba".format(objective.name))


Edited this message because I thought it was not clear.

angela97lin

Nice, excited for this! I left a comment about the refactoring (is all of it necessary for this PR?) and testing (how can we test that we are actually raising exceptions when expected?) :)

angela97lin · 2020-07-16T16:06:01Z

docs/source/changelog.rst

+        * Pipelines will now raise a `PipelineScoreError` when they encounter an error during scoring :pr:`936`
+        * AutoML will now log hyperparameters and stacktraces for pipelines that encounter an error during search :pr:`936`


Could we reword these via past tense verbs :D

angela97lin · 2020-07-16T16:06:15Z

docs/source/changelog.rst

@@ -27,6 +29,7 @@ Changelog
        * ``list_model_families`` has been moved to ``evalml.model_family.utils`` (previously was under ``evalml.pipelines.utils``) :pr:`903`
        * Static pipeline definitions have been removed, but similar pipelines can still be constructed via creating an instance of PipelineBase :pr:`904`
        * ``all_pipelines()`` and ``get_pipelines()`` utility methods have been removed :pr:`904`
+        * Removed the "raise_errors" flag in AutoML search. All errors during pipeline evaluation will be caught and logged. :pr:`936`


angela97lin · 2020-07-16T16:07:09Z

evalml/automl/automl_search.py

        self._add_result(trained_pipeline=baseline,
                         parameters=baseline.parameters,
                         training_time=baseline_results['training_time'],
                         cv_data=baseline_results['cv_data'],
                         cv_scores=baseline_results['cv_scores'])

-    def _compute_cv_scores(self, pipeline, X, y, raise_errors=True):
+    def _compute_cv_scores(self, pipeline, X, y):


I'm so glad we're removing the passing around of raise_errors :))))

angela97lin · 2020-07-16T16:10:05Z

evalml/automl/automl_search.py

-                    raise e
-                score = np.nan
-                scores = OrderedDict(zip([n.name for n in self.additional_objectives], [np.nan] * len(self.additional_objectives)))
+                filename_message = f"\t\t\tFold {i}: Please check {logger.handlers[1].baseFilename} for the current hyperparameters and stacktrace."


stacktrace --> stack trace

angela97lin · 2020-07-16T16:30:20Z

evalml/tests/pipeline_tests/test_pipelines.py

+    try:
        dummy_regression_pipeline_class(parameters={}).score(X, y, ['precision', 'auc'])
+    except PipelineScoreError as e:
+        assert "Objective `AUC` is not suited for regression problems." in e.message


Curious about this try/except pattern in testing. Is there no way to keep the pytest.raises pattern? My concern is that if we make a change / bug where we accidentally don't raise PipelineScoreError, we won't ever check the assert message and won't catch this issue, even if we should! If there's no way to use the pytest.raises to check for custom fields, it could be worth keeping it in so we know we're raising the correct exception?

Originally I kept pytest.raises but the problem is that if you have something like

with pytest.raises(PipelineScoreError) as e: _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names) assert e.scored_successfully == {"Precision Micro": 1.0} assert 'finna kabooom 💣' in e.message assert "F1 Micro" in e.exceptions

Pytest won't run anything after the method that raises the expected error (in this case clf.score).

One thing I tried was something like:

with pytest.raises(PipelineScoreError) as e: _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names) assert e.scored_successfully == {"Precision Micro": 1.0} assert 'finna kabooom 💣' in e.message assert "F1 Micro" in e.exceptions

But the problem is that pytest changes the type of e from PipelineScoreError to something pytest specific so it makes making the checks harder and more confusing.

I take your point that if we no longer raise PipelineScoreError, we wouldn't know if the test failed. I see two solutions:

Combine pytest.raises with try/except

with pytest.raises(PipelineScoreError) as e: _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names) try: _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names) except PipelineScoreError as e: assert e.scored_successfully == {"Precision Micro": 1.0} assert 'finna kabooom 💣' in e.message assert "F1 Micro" in e.exceptions

Assert that we do not continue after the line that should raise an exception:

try: _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names) assert False, "Score should raise a PipelineScoreError!" except PipelineScoreError as e: assert e.scored_successfully == {"Precision Micro": 1.0} assert 'finna kabooom 💣' in e.message assert "F1 Micro" in e.exceptions

Happy to do either - what are your thoughts?

Ah, thanks for the explanation! I don't have a clear preference for either solution and think they're both pretty clear. Perhaps the second solution seems cleaner / more efficient since we only have to call score once? But ultimately both look great :D

Great, I'll go for the second!

Nice discussion!! 🚀

I like option 2 as well.

One addition to make: use pytest.fail

try: _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names) pytest.fail("Score should raise a PipelineScoreError!") except PipelineScoreError as e: assert e.scored_successfully == {"Precision Micro": 1.0} assert 'finna kabooom 💣' in e.message assert "F1 Micro" in e.exceptions

Actually, I'll use the first option since it is easier to make circleci pass since the assert False or pytest.fail lines would not run right now.

angela97lin · 2020-07-16T16:33:18Z

evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py

+    def _score(X, y, predictions, predicted_probabilities, objectives, is_objective_suitable=None):
        """Given data, model predictions or predicted probabilities computed on the data, and an objective, evaluate and return the objective score.

-        Will return `np.nan` if the objective errors.
+        Will raise a PipelineScoreError if any objectives fail.
+        Arguments:
+            X (pd.DataFrame): The feature matrix.
+            y (pd.Series): The labels.
+            predictions (pd.Series): The pipeline predictions.
+            predicted_probabilities (pd.Dataframe, pd.Series, None): The predicted probabilities for classification problems.
+                Will be a DataFrame for multiclass problems and Series otherwise. Will be None for regression problems.
+            objectives (list): List of objectives to score.
+            is_objective_suitable (callable): Function to check whether the objective function is suitable for the problem.
+                For example, AUC is not suitable for regression problems.
        """
-        score = np.nan
-        try:
-            score = objective.score(y, predictions, X)
-        except Exception as e:
-            logger.error('Error in PipelineBase.score while scoring objective {}: {}'.format(objective.name, str(e)))
-        return score
+        scored_successfully = OrderedDict()
+        exceptions = OrderedDict()
+        for objective in objectives:
+            try:
+                is_objective_suitable(objective)
+                score = objective.score(y, predicted_probabilities if objective.score_needs_proba else predictions, X)
+                scored_successfully.update({objective.name: score})
+            except Exception as e:
+                tb = traceback.format_tb(sys.exc_info()[2])
+                exceptions[objective.name] = (e, tb)
+        if exceptions:
+            # If any objective failed, throw an PipelineScoreError
+            raise PipelineScoreError(exceptions, scored_successfully)
+        else:
+            # No objectives failed, return the scores
+            return scored_successfully


Hmmm, I think I understand your comment but at least for this change, this refactor seems pretty large but not necessary for the better error handling? Perhaps for this PR we could just keep _score as it was, removing the try/except wrapper if we don't need that anymore, and then tackle this in a separate PR? I like the consolidation of evalml/pipelines/binary_classification_pipeline.py but would love to discuss this bit more and don't want it to block the rest of this PR's changes.

Let's get on a call to discuss this!

For those following, we decided to keep _score's old implementation (without the try except) to not introduce a breaking change and rename the method I call _score to _score_objectives.

angela97lin · 2020-07-16T16:36:15Z

evalml/tests/automl_tests/test_automl.py

@@ -72,11 +72,12 @@ def test_search_results(X_y_regression, X_y_binary, X_y_multi, automl_type):
        index=['id', 'pipeline_name', 'score', 'high_variance_cv', 'parameters']))


-@patch('evalml.pipelines.BinaryClassificationPipeline.score')
-@patch('evalml.pipelines.BinaryClassificationPipeline.fit')
+@patch('evalml.pipelines.ClassificationPipeline.score')


Hm, looks like we're only using the X_y_binary fixture though, could you update this for the multiclass test (or just move it out / parametrize it)?

dsherry

@freddyaboulton this looks really great!

My only blocking comment on the impl was about _score_all_objectives" I think we can delete/replace is_objective_suitable by checking the pipeline and objective problem_type matches. Will approve once we resolve that discussion!

dsherry · 2020-07-17T20:48:49Z

docs/source/release_notes.rst

@@ -41,6 +43,7 @@ Release Notes
        * ``list_model_families`` has been moved to ``evalml.model_family.utils`` (previously was under ``evalml.pipelines.utils``) :pr:`903`
        * Static pipeline definitions have been removed, but similar pipelines can still be constructed via creating an instance of PipelineBase :pr:`904`
        * ``all_pipelines()`` and ``get_pipelines()`` utility methods have been removed :pr:`904`
+        * Removed the "raise_errors" flag in AutoML search. All errors during pipeline evaluation will be caught and logged. :pr:`936`


dsherry · 2020-07-17T20:51:27Z

evalml/automl/automl_search.py

-    def search(self, X, y, data_checks="auto", feature_types=None, raise_errors=True, show_iteration_plot=True):
-        """Find the best pipeline for the data set.
+    def search(self, X, y, data_checks="auto", feature_types=None, show_iteration_plot=True):
+        """Find best classifier


@freddyaboulton let's not make this change. We're not just building classifiers :)

Definitely!

dsherry · 2020-07-17T20:55:02Z

evalml/automl/automl_search.py

+                logger.info(intro_message)
+                logger.info(score_message)
+                logger.info(filename_message)
+                logger.debug(hyperparameter_message)


Nice

I'm having trouble tracking how the declarations match up with the log call order. Can we just do direct logging out for some of these? Like logger.info(f"\t\t\tFold {i}: Please check {logger.handlers[1].baseFilename} for the current hyperparameters and stack trace."), instead of including the intermediate variable

dsherry · 2020-07-17T20:56:50Z

evalml/exceptions/exceptions.py

+        exception_list = []
+        for objective, (exception, tb) in exceptions.items():
+            tb = [f"{objective} encountered {str(exception.__class__.__name__)} with message ({str(exception)}):\n"] + tb
+            exception_list.extend(tb)


exception_list.append(f"{objective} encountered {str(exception.__class__.__name__)} with message ({str(exception)}):\n") exception_list.extend(tb)

?

The trace back (tb) is stored as a list of strings. I'm adding a "header" describing and the exception and the objective that raised it and then using extend to aggregate all the trace backs into a list of strings.

Ah ok. My suggestion didn't do a good job of this but I was wondering why you need two lines instead of just one, calling append directly with the content

Ah I see! Yes, I think that works.

dsherry · 2020-07-21T14:54:56Z

evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py

+        exceptions = OrderedDict()
+        for objective in objectives:
+            try:
+                is_objective_suitable(objective)


@freddyaboulton what if instead of using is_objective_suitable, we had problem_type as input, and then added validation logic to this method _score_all_objectives:

if self.problem_type != objective.problem_type: raise PipelineScoreError(f'Invalid objective {objective.name} specified for problem type {self.problem_type}')

I think this covers all the cases your current code covers. The only objectives which can accept predicted probabilities are binary/multiclass problems. Therefore, if an objective's problem type doesn't match the pipelines' problem type, something is wrong. What do you think?

Great idea! Much simpler than what I had in mind 👍 I'll implement this now.

evalml/tests/pipeline_tests/test_pipelines.py

dsherry · 2020-07-21T15:00:35Z

evalml/tests/pipeline_tests/test_pipelines.py

+    try:
        dummy_regression_pipeline_class(parameters={}).score(X, y, ['precision', 'auc'])
+    except PipelineScoreError as e:
+        assert "Objective `AUC` is not suited for regression problems." in e.message


Nice discussion!! 🚀

I like option 2 as well.

One addition to make: use pytest.fail

try: _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names) pytest.fail("Score should raise a PipelineScoreError!") except PipelineScoreError as e: assert e.scored_successfully == {"Precision Micro": 1.0} assert 'finna kabooom 💣' in e.message assert "F1 Micro" in e.exceptions

…inting.

…cit logging in AutoMLSearch._compute_cv_scores.

dsherry

This is great!!

I left comments on a few small things. None blocking.

It will be interesting to see if/when we get a feature request for stopping on first error!

dsherry · 2020-07-21T18:31:52Z

evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py

@@ -232,16 +238,39 @@ def score(self, X, y, objectives):

    @staticmethod
    def _score(X, y, predictions, objective):
+        return objective.score(y, predictions, X)
+
+    def _score_all_objectives(self, X, y, predictions, predicted_probabilities, objectives):


For naming consistency with the rest of the codebase, can we say y_pred and y_pred_proba / similar here?

Definitely.

dsherry · 2020-07-21T18:35:26Z

evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py

+            predicted_probabilities (pd.Dataframe, pd.Series, None): The predicted probabilities for classification problems.
+                Will be a DataFrame for multiclass problems and Series otherwise. Will be None for regression problems.
+            objectives (list): List of objectives to score.
+            is_objective_suitable (callable): Function to check whether the objective function is suitable for the problem.


Can delete this from docstring

Great to have this docstring though thanks for adding

Good catch!

dsherry · 2020-07-21T18:36:01Z

evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py

+        if exceptions:
+            # If any objective failed, throw an PipelineScoreError
+            raise PipelineScoreError(exceptions, scored_successfully)
+        else:


Nit pick, no need for the else if the if raises

dsherry · 2020-07-21T18:36:59Z

evalml/pipelines/pipeline_base.py

+                scored_successfully.update({objective.name: score})
+            except Exception as e:
+                tb = traceback.format_tb(sys.exc_info()[2])
+                exceptions[objective.name] = (e, tb)


This is great! Easy to follow. Great that we generate the traceback too

dsherry · 2020-07-21T18:38:22Z

evalml/tests/pipeline_tests/test_pipelines.py

+    with pytest.raises(PipelineScoreError):
+        _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names)
+    try:
+        _ = clf.score(X, y, objective_names)


@freddyaboulton I see you resolved the old comment about this, but why do we have both with raises ... and try/except? Can't we just use one or the other, and add pytest.fail(msg) here after the call to score?

I think right now the pytest.fail(msg) line would not run so I would fail the circleci quality gate but with this implementation every line runs.

Oh you mean codecov? Damn 🤦 makes sense.

… Also changing logging levels to what they were before.

…_proba.

angela97lin · 2020-07-21T19:49:08Z

docs/source/release_notes.rst

@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ Release Notes
        * Added text processing and featurization component `TextFeaturizer` :pr:`913`, :pr:`924`
        * Added additional checks to InvalidTargetDataCheck to handle invalid target data types :pr:`929`
        * AutoMLSearch will now handle KeyboardInterrupt and prompt user for confirmation :pr:`915`
+        * Modified Pipelines to raise `PipelineScoreError` when they encounter an error during scoring :pr:`936`


We should move these to Future Release!

angela97lin

Just added one tiny comment about cleaning up _add_baseline_pipelines and removing raise_errors from that signature but otherwise LGTM!

angela97lin · 2020-07-21T19:52:19Z

evalml/automl/automl_search.py

@@ -496,6 +494,7 @@ def _add_baseline_pipelines(self, X, y, raise_errors=True):
            bool - If the user ends the search early, will return True and searching will immediately finish. Else,
                will return False and more pipelines will be searched.
        """
+


Should we remove raise_errors from def _add_baseline_pipelines(self, X, y, raise_errors=True)?

(Docstring too if we do!)

Good catch!

freddyaboulton commented Jul 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

freddyaboulton self-assigned this Jul 15, 2020

freddyaboulton commented Jul 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

freddyaboulton commented Jul 16, 2020

View reviewed changes

freddyaboulton marked this pull request as ready for review July 16, 2020 14:23

freddyaboulton requested review from angela97lin and dsherry July 16, 2020 14:23

angela97lin suggested changes Jul 16, 2020

View reviewed changes

freddyaboulton added this to the July 2020 milestone Jul 17, 2020

freddyaboulton force-pushed the 813-better-error-handling branch 3 times, most recently from 4e216fb to 3268bc6 Compare July 20, 2020 20:39

freddyaboulton requested a review from angela97lin July 21, 2020 00:14

dsherry suggested changes Jul 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

freddyaboulton added 9 commits July 21, 2020 13:13

Refactoring pipelines to raise PipelineScoreError always.

0ee32fe

Logging stacktrace and hyperparameters for failed pipelines. Fixing l…

1a11b42

…inting.

Editing changelog for PR 936

d6f86de

Adding the objective score_needs_proba check for regression pipelines.

0f88c25

Passing is_objective_suitable parameter for classification pipelines.

7300489

Replacing lambda with def.

09906ae

Using past-tense in changelog for PR 936.

50f3f28

Changing _score to its original implementation (without try/except).

868d3d4

Adding pytest.raises to tests that expect a PipelineScoreError.

cf93bf2

freddyaboulton added 3 commits July 21, 2020 13:13

Fixing typos after rebase.

031b594

Removing unused PipelineScoreError import

0125bc9

Removing is_objective_suitable from _score_all_objectives. More expli…

9f1c75b

…cit logging in AutoMLSearch._compute_cv_scores.

freddyaboulton force-pushed the 813-better-error-handling branch from 81851b1 to 9f1c75b Compare July 21, 2020 17:13

freddyaboulton requested a review from dsherry July 21, 2020 17:56

dsherry approved these changes Jul 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

freddyaboulton added 2 commits July 21, 2020 14:40

Cleaning up how the trace backs are aggregated in PipelineScoreError.…

a879fe8

… Also changing logging levels to what they were before.

Changing predictions and predicted_probabilities to y_pred and y_pred…

404da84

…_proba.

angela97lin reviewed Jul 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

Moving release_notes changes to Future Release for 936.

5305484

angela97lin approved these changes Jul 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

Removing raise_errors from _add_baseline_pipelines.

17d2615

freddyaboulton merged commit 987cf67 into main Jul 21, 2020

freddyaboulton deleted the 813-better-error-handling branch July 21, 2020 20:32

angela97lin mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2020

Release v0.12.0 #1007

Merged

		* Pipelines will now raise a `PipelineScoreError` when they encounter an error during scoring :pr:`936`
		* AutoML will now log hyperparameters and stacktraces for pipelines that encounter an error during search :pr:`936`

813 better error handling #936

813 better error handling #936

Conversation

freddyaboulton commented Jul 15, 2020 • edited

Pull Request Description

What the user sees

What the logs look like

codecov bot commented Jul 15, 2020 • edited

Codecov Report

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

freddyaboulton Jul 15, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

freddyaboulton Jul 15, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

angela97lin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dsherry left a comment • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dsherry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

freddyaboulton Jul 21, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

angela97lin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

freddyaboulton commented Jul 15, 2020 •

edited

codecov bot commented Jul 15, 2020 •

edited

freddyaboulton Jul 15, 2020 •

edited

freddyaboulton Jul 15, 2020 •

edited

dsherry left a comment •

edited

freddyaboulton Jul 21, 2020 •

edited