Add more doctests - #3002
Conversation
# Conflicts: # evalml/data_checks/invalid_targets_data_check.py # evalml/data_checks/target_distribution_data_check.py
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3002 +/- ##
=======================================
+ Coverage 99.7% 99.7% +0.1%
=======================================
Files 312 312
Lines 29853 29856 +3
=======================================
+ Hits 29762 29765 +3
Misses 91 91
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| dict (DataCheckError): List with DataCheckErrors if unequal intervals are found in the datetime column. | ||
|
|
||
| Example: | ||
| Examples: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could just be personal opinion, but I think if we add this many examples (which is great!), it gets a little harder to read. Maybe what we need here is an extra line above each example to better understand what each example is trying to convey? From a quick glance, it's a bit hard to gauge the purpose of each example 😬
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure thing, so maybe a comment above a doctest briefly explaining what it does?
freddyaboulton
left a comment
freddyaboulton
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ParthivNaresh Thank you for this! This looks good to me. I agree with @angela97lin that since some docstrings test different things, it might be helpful to add some in-line comments above each one to document what's happening.
Other than that, I think it would be helpful if some of the assert float1 == float2 checks used rounding so that these don't start to flake if we're off by negligible amount in a future release.
| metadata={"columns": too_sparse_cols}, | ||
| ).to_dict() | ||
| ) | ||
| if too_sparse_cols: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How come we need to add this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If none of the columns are returned from the sparsity_score, results still appends warning and actions. The warning message ends up being "Input columns ({}) for multiclass problem type are too sparse."
| Examples: | ||
| >>> from evalml.pipelines.components.estimators.regressors.decision_tree_regressor import DecisionTreeRegressor | ||
| >>> assert generate_component_code(DecisionTreeRegressor()) == "from evalml.pipelines.components.estimators.regressors.decision_tree_regressor import DecisionTreeRegressor\n\ndecisionTreeRegressor = DecisionTreeRegressor(**{'criterion': 'mse', 'max_features': 'auto', 'max_depth': 6, 'min_samples_split': 2, 'min_weight_fraction_leaf': 0.0})" | ||
| ... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Docs don't build without the r prefix? Is it cause of these three dots here? The example renders fine in the doc so I'm just wondering what happened but no need to change anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The lint check doesn't pass, I think due to the \n characters in the output
| ] | ||
| if len(highly_null_rows) > 0: | ||
| warning_msg = f"{len(highly_null_rows)} out of {len(X)} rows are more than {self.pct_null_row_threshold*100}% null" | ||
| warning_msg = f"{len(highly_null_rows)} out of {len(X)} rows are {self.pct_null_row_threshold*100}% or more null" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comment as in the sparsity data check: Just wondering we were modifying this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the threshold check is percent_null_rows >= self.pct_null_row_threshold, so the phrasing or more seemed more appropriate than more than
eccabay
left a comment
eccabay
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What a beast of a change! Thanks for doing this, just left a few tiny tiny semantic nitpicks
4 participants
Completes #2936