Skip to content

Conversation

@janvanrijn
Copy link
Member

Reference Issue

What does this PR implement/fix? Explain your changes.

How should this PR be tested?

Any other comments?

Copy link
Contributor

@LennartPurucker LennartPurucker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added multiple comments. Otherwise LGTM!

data_type: str,
nominal_values: list[str],
number_missing_values: int,
ontologies: list[str],
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this needs to have a default value as it is otherwise a breaking change?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

while technically it would make break code, I find it unlikely that people use this constructor outside our library. In the library, I think I have updated all constructors


def data_feature_add_ontology(data_id, index, ontology):
"""
Adds an ontology (URL) to a given dataset feature (defined by a dataset id
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add a short description of the concept of ontology in the docstring.

number_missing_values : int
Number of rows that have a missing value for this feature.
ontologies : list(str)
list of ontologies attached to this feature
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe add a short description of the concept of ontologies.

return int(data_id)


def data_feature_add_ontology(data_id, index, ontology):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Requires type hints and return type

return True


def data_feature_remove_ontology(data_id, index, ontology):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add typing

@LennartPurucker
Copy link
Contributor

Also, try to fill the PR template so we can document the change for later; thanks!

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jan 11, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (326bf0b) 74.01% compared to head (2b914d0) 75.82%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

❗ Current head 2b914d0 differs from pull request most recent head dc9408d. Consider uploading reports for the commit dc9408d to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1313      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    74.01%   75.82%   +1.81%     
===========================================
  Files           38       38              
  Lines         5237     5246       +9     
===========================================
+ Hits          3876     3978     +102     
+ Misses        1361     1268      -93     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@eddiebergman eddiebergman force-pushed the add_feature_description branch from 2b914d0 to af57407 Compare January 12, 2024 10:50
@eddiebergman
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing and we cherry picked these into a new PR for a simpler times, @janvanrijn you were added to the contributors of that PR!

@PGijsbers PGijsbers deleted the add_feature_description branch January 14, 2024 11:17
@janvanrijn
Copy link
Member Author

just for my information: was that PR merged already? (and if not, which PR was it?)

@eddiebergman
Copy link
Collaborator

eddiebergman commented Jan 16, 2024

#1316 and it was merged :)
We need to do a release in the next few days. Everything else is fixed and working

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants