Skip to content
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

Add test to ensure positive_label passed properly in AMLSearch #3326

Merged
merged 62 commits into from Apr 6, 2022

Conversation

bchen1116
Copy link
Contributor

@bchen1116 bchen1116 commented Feb 14, 2022

fix #3068

The main thing we have to make sure is to pass the label encoder parameter to the stacked ensembler, since if the problem is classification, it will need these params. Most of this PR adds the logic to pass this param forward. We don't need to pass other parameters forward since we expect the pipelines to already be initialized with their respective parameters.

@bchen1116 bchen1116 self-assigned this Feb 14, 2022
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 14, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #3326 (cea8749) into main (1c74af9) will increase coverage by 0.1%.
The diff coverage is 100.0%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #3326     +/-   ##
=======================================
+ Coverage   99.7%   99.7%   +0.1%     
=======================================
  Files        336     336             
  Lines      33282   33295     +13     
=======================================
+ Hits       33150   33163     +13     
  Misses       132     132             
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
evalml/automl/automl_algorithm/automl_algorithm.py 100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...valml/automl/automl_algorithm/default_algorithm.py 100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...lml/automl/automl_algorithm/iterative_algorithm.py 97.4% <100.0%> (ø)
evalml/pipelines/utils.py 99.5% <100.0%> (ø)
.../automl_tests/test_automl_search_classification.py 96.6% <100.0%> (+0.1%) ⬆️

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 1c74af9...cea8749. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@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.

LGTM!

@bchen1116 bchen1116 marked this pull request as draft February 14, 2022 21:39
@bchen1116 bchen1116 marked this pull request as ready for review March 9, 2022 22:03
@bchen1116 bchen1116 requested review from jeremyliweishih and freddyaboulton and removed request for angela97lin March 9, 2022 22:03
@bchen1116 bchen1116 marked this pull request as draft March 10, 2022 22:53
@bchen1116 bchen1116 marked this pull request as ready for review March 24, 2022 19:02
Copy link
Contributor

@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.

LGTM, great work!

Copy link
Collaborator

@chukarsten chukarsten left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just going to block this for a minute for clarity - this has the search_parameters changes in it, yes? Should it be a PR to your search_parameters PR? I don't think we should risk this getting merged before the other PR

"parameter c": 0,
"parameter d": 0,
"parameter e": "option a",
"parameter f": "option a 💩",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should I be seeing a poop emoji here???

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was work done previously, I didn't change the resutls heh

@chukarsten
Copy link
Collaborator

@jeremyliweishih I rerequested your review now that the actual diff is readable

Copy link
Contributor

@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.

LGTM, just a question about release cleanup and testing.

docs/source/release_notes.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@chukarsten chukarsten left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome! Thank you, as always, Bryan.

@bchen1116 bchen1116 merged commit 80868c4 into main Apr 6, 2022
@chukarsten chukarsten mentioned this pull request Apr 12, 2022
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.

Add tests to ensure positive_label parameter set in AutoMLSearch is properly set to LabelEncoder
4 participants