Skip to content

Add partial dependence to API reference #1537

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

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 10, 2020
Merged

Conversation

angela97lin
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #1516

Also does minor reorganization, separating out data utils from graphing utils, but open to other suggestions as to how to split up that section more 🤷

image

@angela97lin angela97lin added this to the December 2020 milestone Dec 9, 2020
@angela97lin angela97lin self-assigned this Dec 9, 2020
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 9, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #1537 (a036b68) into main (9b0a1b4) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1537   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   100.0%   100.0%           
=======================================
  Files         232      232           
  Lines       16639    16639           
=======================================
  Hits        16631    16631           
  Misses          8        8           

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 9b0a1b4...a036b68. Read the comment docs.

@angela97lin angela97lin marked this pull request as ready for review December 9, 2020 18:37
Copy link
Collaborator

@jeremyliweishih jeremyliweishih left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice change!

Copy link
Contributor

@freddyaboulton freddyaboulton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! Should we make _get_prediction_vs_actual_data public? What do you think @bchen1116 ?

@bchen1116
Copy link
Contributor

@angela97lin @freddyaboulton We can make _get_predictions_vs_actual_data public. It can be a useful function that allows users to get the data and do further analysis on it.

Copy link
Contributor

@bchen1116 bchen1116 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great! Thanks for cleaning this up

@angela97lin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@freddyaboulton @bchen1116 Looks like unit tests are missing for _get_predictions_vs_actual_data, so filed an issue to track adding unit tests and making the API public: #1542 😁

@angela97lin angela97lin merged commit d77e854 into main Dec 10, 2020
@angela97lin angela97lin deleted the 1516_add_partial_dep_api branch December 10, 2020 18:37
@dsherry dsherry mentioned this pull request Dec 29, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Partial Dependence methods missing from api reference
4 participants