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

added __init__.py for OE lemmatizer submodule #931

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 14, 2019

Conversation

@free-variation
Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 14, 2019

Fix for #930

Also there's an evaluation function in the lemmatizer which is for dev purposes and can be ignored by end users. Maybe it should live somewhere else?

@codecov-io

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 14, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #931 into master will decrease coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 6.25%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master     #931     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage   89.82%   89.73%   -0.1%     
=========================================
  Files         222      222             
  Lines       14250    14266     +16     
=========================================
+ Hits        12800    12801      +1     
- Misses       1450     1465     +15
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cltk/lemmatize/old_english/lemma.py 83.33% <6.25%> (-16.67%) ⬇️

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 7530ad8...2712aa5. Read the comment docs.

@@ -128,4 +128,29 @@ def evaluate(self, filename):

return lemma_count/token_count

def evaluate_conll(self, filename):
with open(filename, 'r') as infile:

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@kylepjohnson

kylepjohnson Aug 14, 2019

Member

Looks like a tabs issue again? :)

@kylepjohnson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 14, 2019

an evaluation function in the lemmatizer which is for dev purposes and can be ignored by end users. Maybe it should live somewhere else?

I was thinking about that recently. Let's keep such evaluators close to the algos. We might want to bring them together, once several more are done and we have a feeling about how to do it for all relevant modules.

@kylepjohnson kylepjohnson merged commit 0a954fe into cltk:master Aug 14, 2019

1 of 3 checks passed

codecov/patch 6.25% of diff hit (target 89.82%)
Details
codecov/project 89.73% (-0.1%) compared to 7530ad8
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.