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

Allow histology patches to be extracted without ground truth labels #657

Conversation

sarthakpati
Copy link
Collaborator

@sarthakpati sarthakpati commented May 22, 2023

Fixes #656

Proposed Changes

  • patch miner can now be used without an explicit Label header
  • added printing traceback in case of CLI error

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING guide.
  • My PR is based from the current GaNDLF master .
  • Non-breaking change (does not break existing functionality): provide as many details as possible for any breaking change.
  • Function/class source code documentation added/updated.
  • Code has been blacked for style consistency.
  • If applicable, version information has been updated in GANDLF/version.py.
  • If adding a git submodule, add to list of exceptions for black styling in pyproject.toml file.
  • Usage documentation has been updated, if appropriate.
  • History has been updated, if appropriate.
  • Tests added or modified to cover the changes; if coverage is reduced, please give explanation.
  • If customized dependency installation is required (i.e., a separate pip install step is needed for PR to be functional), please ensure it is reflected in all the files that control the CI, namely: python-test.yml, and all docker files [1,2,3].

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 22, 2023

MLCommons CLA bot All contributors have signed the MLCommons CLA ✍️ ✅

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 22, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #657 (f2787c6) into master (b6dc393) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 76.92%.

❗ Current head f2787c6 differs from pull request most recent head fb9dc83. Consider uploading reports for the commit fb9dc83 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #657   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.33%   94.33%           
=======================================
  Files         114      114           
  Lines        7679     7682    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits         7244     7247    +3     
  Misses        435      435           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 94.33% <76.92%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
GANDLF/cli/patch_extraction.py 89.13% <75.00%> (+0.49%) ⬆️
GANDLF/utils/write_parse.py 96.59% <75.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
GANDLF/data/patch_miner/opm/patch_manager.py 91.19% <100.00%> (ø)

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@Geeks-Sid
Copy link
Collaborator

One of the tests is randomly failing. Can we re-un?

@sarthakpati
Copy link
Collaborator Author

One of the tests is randomly failing. Can we re-un?

Ah, stochasticity, though art indeed a fickle mistress. Re-run initiated.

@sarthakpati sarthakpati merged commit af1a8bd into mlcommons:master May 22, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 22, 2023
@sarthakpati sarthakpati deleted the 656-using-patch-miner-without-label-header-results-in-failure branch February 8, 2024 19:31
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Using patch miner without Label header results in failure
2 participants