Encode targets for Time Series Classification Pipelines

[freddyaboulton]

Pull Request Description

Fixes #1976

---

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2040 (f3ec5f5) into main (77b528b) will decrease coverage by 0.1%.
The diff coverage is 100.0%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             main    #2040     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage   100.0%   100.0%   -0.0%     
=========================================
  Files         278      278             
  Lines       22920    22770    -150     
=========================================
- Hits        22911    22761    -150     
  Misses          9        9             

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../pipelines/time_series_classification_pipelines.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
evalml/tests/pipeline_tests/test_pipelines.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...peline_tests/test_time_series_baseline_pipeline.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
.../tests/pipeline_tests/test_time_series_pipeline.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...lml/tests/model_understanding_tests/test_graphs.py	100.0% <0.0%> (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 77b528b...f3ec5f5. Read the comment docs.

[bchen1116]

Nice! Can you add a test for thresholding the binary TS pipeline? As per issue, "then adding in an equivalent test as test_binary_pipeline_string_target_thresholding in test_pipelines to the time_series_pipeline tests."

Otherwise, looks good to me!

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[ParthivNaresh]

Looks great! Nice mocking work

[freddyaboulton]

@bchen1116 Great call! Just pushed up that test.

[chukarsten]

Awesome, love the tests too. I dunno what it is about a good test that I can look at the name of and read and see it do what it set out to do that makes me feel good, but it does. I added a note about maybe parameterizing your for loop to make test failures a little prettier, but take it or leave it.

[chukarsten]

Might be a nit, but it'll look better in test failure, perhaps paratetrize this one?

[freddyaboulton]

Good call! I just got lazy cause you can't parametrize over fixtures lol