CLAModel name changed to HTMPredictionModel #3516
Conversation
|
As discussed offline, |
|
I kindof like |
rhyolight
changed the title
|
Will wait for @subutai before merging. |
| @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ from nupic.frameworks.opf.expdescriptionhelpers import ( | |||
| applyValueGettersToContainer, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this is marked as UNDER_DEVELOPMENT can we just delete it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are a bunch of "UNDER_DEVELOPMENT" examples. I've removed them in another PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks - might want to merge in master - will likely be merge conflicts.
docs/source/quick-start/opf.rst
Outdated
| @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ using the :class:`.ModelFactory`. | |||
|
|
|||
| .. literalinclude:: ../../examples/opf/create-model-example.py | |||
|
|
|||
| The resulting ``model`` will be an instance of :class:`.CLAModel`. | |||
| The resulting ``model`` will be an instance of :class:`.SPTMModel`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SPTM is not too informative. Should we consider calling it StreamingModel or PredictionModel?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@subutai @mrcslws @scottpurdy I would like it if you guys could talk in the office and come up with a name you agree on. Once you have one, I will update the PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@subutai - "Prediction" and "streaming" aren't good because all OPF models are streaming and prediction. One really important thing to capture is that this is HTM-related since other models may be for reference (like TwoGramModel). While "HTMModel" might be ok, we may split out certain variants into their own classes rather than shoe-horning all HTM-variants into a single OPF model.
That is how we got to "SPTMModel" but definitely open to other ideas.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And spittem is fun to say
| @@ -35,12 +35,12 @@ def claModelControlEnableSPLearningCb(claModel): | |||
|
|
|||
| See also claModelControlDisableSPLearningCb. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The text prefix claModel was not replaced. Shows up in many places.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, waiting for a final name before I commit anything.
|
@subutai Warned the community here: https://discourse.numenta.org/t/warning-0-7-0-breaking-changes/2200/4 This PR is ready to merge if we are ok with |
rhyolight
changed the title
|
Decision: |
|
I just realized this also means we need to update the # Type of model that the rest of these parameters apply to.
'model': "CLA",More changes coming to lots of example files, and the |
| # get to cleaning up the clamodel.py file. | ||
| # being called at the same time as the compute() method. Only compute() | ||
| # should be called via network.run(). This flag will be removed once we | ||
| # get to cleaning up the htmpredictionmodel.py file. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't the file be htm_prediction_model.py?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was just following previous convention. Should I change both the module name and file name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought having the _ was our filename convention (not module names), but you are right that the OPF directory doesn't seem to follow that. Perhaps best handled in another PR.
| @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ from nupic.frameworks.opf.expdescriptionhelpers import ( | |||
| applyValueGettersToContainer, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks - might want to merge in master - will likely be merge conflicts.
| sb. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should I have left this pickle alone?
|
@scottpurdy @subutai Ready for final review. This might break regression tests. If so I will fix tomorrow. |
fixes #3515