Add integration tests for end to end flow for data checks --> data check actions #2883
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2883 +/- ##
=======================================
+ Coverage 99.7% 99.7% +0.1%
=======================================
Files 309 310 +1
Lines 29399 29495 +96
=======================================
+ Hits 29308 29404 +96
Misses 91 91
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
…2815_dc_integration
| @@ -381,16 +381,16 @@ def _make_component_list_from_actions(actions): | |||
| cols_to_drop = [] | |||
| for action in actions: | |||
| if action.action_code == DataCheckActionCode.DROP_COL: | |||
| cols_to_drop.append(action.metadata["column"]) | |||
| cols_to_drop.extend(action.metadata["columns"]) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cleanup after the standardization in #2869
| fail-fast: false | ||
| matrix: | ||
| include: | ||
| - python_version: "3.8" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to run just one python version for now, but curious if there are other opinions!
| make installdeps | ||
| make installdeps-test | ||
| pip freeze | ||
| - name: Erase Coverage |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Honestly, surprised I can call coverage erase here. I thought the two workflows would step on each others' toes and we'd end up with a subpar coverage score, but I guess not 🤷♀️
angela97lin
requested review from
freddyaboulton,
chukarsten,
bchen1116,
christopherbunn,
dsherry and
eccabay
| } | ||
| ) | ||
| for component in action_components: | ||
| X_t = component.fit_transform(X_t) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test highlights how nicely DataCheck/Actions fits into the fit/transform syntax. Very nicely done. I like this, very intuitive.
| X_t = pd.DataFrame(data=data) | ||
| X_t.iloc[0, 3] = 1000 | ||
| X_t.iloc[3, 25] = 1000 | ||
| X_t.iloc[5, 55] = 10000 | ||
| X_t.iloc[10, 72] = -1000 | ||
| X_t.iloc[:, 90] = "string_values" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe I'm missing something, but can we not just use X? X isn't changing is it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah... I think you're right--I had made a separate variable in case we were changing X somewhere / wanted to check the original value, but that was probably unnecessarily cautious :). Removing!
Closes #2815, closes #1998.
Along the way, I noticed that our data checks return dictionary forms of the data check messages / actions (since those are more easily serializable), but
_make_component_list_from_actionstakes in actual data check action objects. Added a helper method to go from one to another. I also noticed it's not super easy to use a list of components, so going to work on #2968 sooner rather than later to make transformations easier :)I think it's fine to just one python version for now and linux only, but curious if there are other opinions!