Skip to content

Error in FileOfflineStore.get_historical_features.<locals>.evaluate_historical_retrieval() #3069

Closed

Description

@franciscojavierarceo

Expected Behavior

.to_df() should return a dataframe.

Current Behavior

When trying to execute .to_df() after executing .to_df(validation_reference=<some-validation-reference/>) the self.evaluation_function().compute() call in the _to_df_internal() method inside the FileRetrievalJob class fails.

While the Data Quality monitoring feature the is implemented within validation_reference is still in alpha, .to_df() should not be an issue.

Steps to reproduce

I've provided a minimally reproducible example in this notebook

Specifications

  • Version: 0.23
  • Platform: Python3.8
  • Subsystem:

Possible Solution

Following the stack trace it appears that there's an issue with the created date.

Activity

  1. felixwang9817 commented on Aug 11, 2022

    @felixwang9817
    Collaborator

    hey @franciscojavierarceo, thanks for reporting this and adding a notebook! I was able to repro the bug very easily

    I think the issue is that that your saved dataset is being stored in data/driver_stats.parquet, which is the location of the file source - hence the file source is being overwritten (and in particular, the data at that location no longer as a created column), and so once you try to run the historical retrieval job again, it fails since the created column has essentially been deleted from its perspective

    is there a particular reason you're trying to save the dataset to data/driver_stats.parquet?

  2. achals commented on Aug 11, 2022

    @achals
    Member

    I think the issue is that that your saved dataset is being stored in data/driver_stats.parquet, which is the location of the file source - hence the file source is being overwritten (and in particular, the data at that location no longer as a created column),

    Should we prevent overwriting any existing files?

  3. felixwang9817 commented on Aug 11, 2022

    @felixwang9817
    Collaborator

    @achals yup I think that's the correct solution here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions