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

Updated NoVarianceDataCheck to return only Warnings #3506

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
May 10, 2022

Conversation

ParthivNaresh
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 8, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #3506 (23871a2) into main (d272705) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.0%.

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #3506   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   99.7%   99.7%           
=====================================
  Files        336     336           
  Lines      33420   33420           
=====================================
  Hits       33294   33294           
  Misses       126     126           
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
evalml/data_checks/no_variance_data_check.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
evalml/tests/data_checks_tests/test_data_checks.py 100.0% <ø> (ø)
...s/data_checks_tests/test_no_variance_data_check.py 100.0% <100.0%> (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 d272705...23871a2. Read the comment docs.

@@ -99,9 +99,6 @@
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"# let's copy the datetime at row 1 for future use\n",
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

DateTimeFormatDataCheck isn't run for a binary problem type so all datetime error references are obsolete

@@ -301,47 +292,6 @@
"results_no_errors = search_iterative(X_train_no_errors, y_train_no_errors, problem_type='binary')\n",
"results_no_errors"
]
},
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

After these changes, the only error left is that the target has null. That leaves little reason to keep this in, but I think a separate issue should be filed to create a more robust example using more data checks with errors.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, please feel free to file and complete!

Copy link
Contributor

@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.

I think once I understand why we're doing this, this looks good to go.

@@ -301,47 +292,6 @@
"results_no_errors = search_iterative(X_train_no_errors, y_train_no_errors, problem_type='binary')\n",
"results_no_errors"
]
},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, please feel free to file and complete!

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.

None yet

2 participants