remove lightgbm from automl

[bchen1116]

Remove LightGBM from AutoML models for now, as it was added without proper performance tests.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1186 into main will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1186      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.92%   99.92%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         196      196              
  Lines       11814    11813       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        11805    11804       -1     
  Misses          9        9              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...lml/tests/model_understanding_tests/test_graphs.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
evalml/utils/gen_utils.py	98.94% <ø> (ø)
evalml/tests/pipeline_tests/test_pipelines.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

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 be126c6...59effba. Read the comment docs.

[bchen1116]

Codecov/project not passing, likely due to the untested line in gen_utils.py for jupyter_check.

[dsherry]

LGTM 👍

[dsherry]

Yep! Thanks

[dsherry]

@bchen1116 this PR is still a draft, did you mean to make it a non-draft?

[dsherry]

@bchen1116 yep you're right, I see that codecov is complaining about gen_utils.py. Because you happened to touch it, it flagged that it has sub-100% coverage.

One way to make it go away is to write a unit test which adds the missing coverage. You think you could look into that?

[angela97lin]

Agreed with Dylan, ideally it'd be best to figure out how to add coverage if possible so that this doesn't happen when more lines are removed/changed in gen_utils.py but otherwise LGTM.

[angela97lin]

Can you make this past-tense?

[bchen1116]

@dsherry @angela97lin I think in order to test the jupyter_check in gen_utils.py, we'd need to add ipython to the test_requirements.txt file?

[dsherry]

@bchen1116 I see what you mean. Adding ipython to our unit tests would be one way to satisfy coverage. Another, arguably simpler way would be to mock it!

@patch('evalml.utils.gen_utils.get_ipython')
def test_jupyter_check_mock(mock_get_ipython):
    mock_get_ipython.return_value = True
    assert jupyter_check()
    assert mock_get_ipython.called

    mock_get_ipython.reset()
    mock_get_ipython.side_effect = NameError('BOOM')
    assert not jupyter_check()
    assert mock_get_ipython.called

    mock_get_ipython.reset()
    mock_get_ipython.side_effect = Exception('BOOM')
    with pytest.raises(Exception, match='BOOM'):
        jupyter_check()
    assert mock_get_ipython.called

def test_jupyter_check_undefined():
    assert not jupyter_check()

(or something like that :) )

[dsherry]

@bchen1116 I made some updates to the above, because I forgot there's a try/except in that method.

[freddyaboulton]

Thanks @bchen1116 !