Pin sktime to 0.17.0 - #4137
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4137 +/- ##
=====================================
Coverage 99.7% 99.7%
=====================================
Files 349 349
Lines 37752 37752
=====================================
Hits 37635 37635
Misses 117 117 Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
| * Removed existing nullable type handling across AutoMLSearch to just use new handling :pr:`4085`, :pr:`4043` | ||
| * Handled nullable type incompatibility in ``Decomposer`` :pr:`4105`, :pr:`4043` | ||
| * Changed the default value for ``null_strategy`` in ``InvalidTargetDataCheck`` to ``drop`` :pr:`4131` | ||
| * Pinned sktime version to 0.17.0 for nullable types support :pr:`4137` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very random but I don't see your release note to remove nullable type handling from ARIMA and the ExponentialSmoothingRegressor. Seems it accidentally got removed in https://github.com/alteryx/evalml/pull/4131/files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Weird, and good catch! Adding it back now
jeremyliweishih
left a comment
jeremyliweishih
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM once release notes are fixed
| * Handled nullable type incompatibility in ``Decomposer`` :pr:`4105`, :pr:`4043` | ||
| * Removed nullable type incompatibility handling for ARIMA and ExponentialSmoothingRegressor :pr:`4129` | ||
| * Changed the default value for ``null_strategy`` in ``InvalidTargetDataCheck`` to ``drop`` :pr:`4131` | ||
| * Pinned sktime version to 0.17.0 for nullable types support :pr:`4137` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this being pinned specifically for nullable types support? I thought it was more general? Or is it because we upgraded to 0.17.0 for nullable type support that we now have to == instead of <= 0.17.0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The latter is correct, yeah. Pinned to == to maintain nullable type support.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
got it! I think this thread is good enough explanation, then, if anyone is looking at this in the future (hi!)
3 participants
Closes #4136