Pass X_train and y_train to graph_prediction_vs_actual_over_time#2762
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2762 +/- ##
=======================================
- Coverage 99.8% 99.8% -0.0%
=======================================
Files 301 301
Lines 27897 27889 -8
=======================================
- Hits 27834 27826 -8
Misses 63 63
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
freddyaboulton
force-pushed
the
2731-graph-prediction-over-time-fix
branch
from
6686981 to
672e243
Compare
freddyaboulton
requested review from
ParthivNaresh,
angela97lin,
bchen1116,
christopherbunn,
chukarsten,
dsherry,
eccabay and
jeremyliweishih
and removed request for
chukarsten
| * Added support for ``woodwork`` versions ``0.7.0`` and ``0.7.1`` :pr:`2743` | ||
| * Changed ``explain_predictions`` functions to display original feature values :pr:`2759` | ||
| * Added ``X_train`` and ``y_train`` to ``graph_prediction_vs_actual_over_time`` and ``get_prediction_vs_actual_over_time_data`` :pr:`2762` | ||
| * Added ``forecast_horizon`` as a required parameter to time series pipelines and ``AutoMLSearch`` :pr:`2697` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Accidentally put the release notes for 2697 into the previous release during a rebase lol
chukarsten
left a comment
chukarsten
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This LGTM! Thank you!
angela97lin
left a comment
angela97lin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks super clean! Just one question to feed my growing time-series knowledge 😂
| " xaxis={\"title\": \"Time\"},\n", | ||
| " yaxis={\"title\": \"Target Values and Predictions\"},\n", | ||
| ")\n", | ||
| "from evalml.model_understanding import graph_prediction_vs_actual_over_time\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Love how simple this is!
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def get_prediction_vs_actual_over_time_data(pipeline, X, y, dates): | ||
| def get_prediction_vs_actual_over_time_data(pipeline, X, y, X_train, y_train, dates): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was this a bug? Or simply doing something different? If the latter, is there any functionality that we want to keep around?
4 participants
Pull Request Description
Fixes #2731
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.rstto include this pull request by adding :pr:123.