Refactors for component_class loops to use pytest.mark.parametrize

[harshvardhanb25]

Pull Request Description

Fixes: #3621

I have fixed most of the for loops to use @pytest.mark.parametrize and have also updated the if...continue cases to use @pytest.mark.xfail. One test case is currently failing but this was happening at the time of the initial fork.

---

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.rst to include this pull request by adding :pr:123.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3622 (7b61b90) into main (616496f) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.0%.

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #3622   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   99.7%   99.7%           
=====================================
  Files        335     335           
  Lines      33508   33508           
=====================================
  Hits       33386   33386           
  Misses       122     122           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
evalml/tests/component_tests/test_components.py	99.1% <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 616496f...7b61b90. Read the comment docs.

[jeremyliweishih]

hey @harshvardhanb25 - thanks for contributing! We need to manually approve your CI runs as you're a first time contributor but I just kicked them off. Please take a look at the failing CI and let me know if you have any questions on fixing them. Looks like you will need to update the release notes to pass the Release notes updated check. Once the CI is fix I'll give the PR a review!

[harshvardhanb25]

Hi @jeremyliweishih I have updated the release notes. However, when I run pylint on componet_tests.py, I get several messages, most of which have nothing to do with the changes I have made to the code. Could you please guide me on how to fix this?

[jeremyliweishih]

@harshvardhanb25 in the EvalML repo you can run make installdeps-dev to install developer dependencies and then pre-commit run to make the lint fixes (if you try to commit after installing developer dependencies it should lint for you as well). Not sure what messages you're getting but we do not use pylint for linting since we use black. Let me know if this helps!

[harshvardhanb25]

@jeremyliweishih I think this should be it. I have updated the release notes and run the lint hooks. Thanks for your help!

[jeremyliweishih]

@harshvardhanb25 no worries! I will get to the review soon - thanks for helping out.

[jeremyliweishih]

@harshvardhanb25 great work on this! Just two suggestions:

1. could you remove the test level @pytest.mark.xfail? I think it is redundant with the pytest.xfail() calls within the test.
2. instead of the using the if statements to call pytest.xfail() could we just use the condition parameter so that we retain information on why these cases were allowed to fail.

Point 1 is the important one but take a shot at point 2 (I can approve once point 1 is fixed 😄 )! Let me know how I can help.

[harshvardhanb25]

@jeremyliweishih I think pytest.xfail() does not take a condition parameter like @pytest.mark.xfail does. I tried doing this and the cases failed because of the additional parameter. Please let me know if there is something that might fix this. I am fixing the first issue you mentioned.

[jeremyliweishih]

@harshvardhanb25 I think you're correct! Thats my mistake 😄 will review once CI passes and will also get you another reviewer tmr. Thanks!

[harshvardhanb25]

@jeremyliweishih thanks for all your help😄. Looking forward to contributing more to this repo.

[jeremyliweishih]

@harshvardhanb25 this PR LGTM, thanks for helping out!

[chukarsten]

Thanks! If you want more commits for your Github portfolio, I plan on putting out some more of these refactoring type issues!

[harshvardhanb25]

@chukarsten that would be awesome! I’m really looking to get my hands on some problems I can try fixing.