-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
compare --> loo_compare #93
Conversation
[ci skip]
[ci skip]
[ci skip]
[ci skip]
[ci skip]
Hey Jonah! I will look at the code tomorrow and test it together with the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The code looks good to me and works smoothly with the corresponding changes I made in brms.
I think this is ready to be merged.
One little thing: Could we add an |
I'm ready to merge this but @avehtari do you want to first try out the |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #93 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.31% 93.24% -1.08%
==========================================
Files 15 17 +2
Lines 1197 1259 +62
==========================================
+ Hits 1129 1174 +45
- Misses 68 85 +17
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@paul-buerkner I removed the deprecation warning from |
This PR deprecates the
compare()
function in favor ofloo_compare()
. This is for several reasons:compare()
is not a generic with methods, which results in rstanarm, brms, etc., using different names for wrappers aroundcompare()
. Withloo_compare()
we can have methodsloo_compare.stanreg
,loo_compare.brmsfit
, etc, unifying the names.compare()
also conflicts with function names in other packages (e.g. testthat::compare)We should time the release of this so that the
loo_compare()
methods in brms and rstanarm are released at the same time.