Skip to content

Conversation

@janvanrijn
Copy link
Member

Stores information about ColumnTransformer in setup, so it can be reinstantiated without problems across tasks.

@janvanrijn janvanrijn changed the base branch from master to develop February 13, 2019 10:11
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Feb 13, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #615 into develop will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 87.75%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #615      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    89.87%   89.81%   -0.06%     
===========================================
  Files           32       32              
  Lines         3031     3053      +22     
===========================================
+ Hits          2724     2742      +18     
- Misses         307      311       +4
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
openml/flows/__init__.py 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
openml/runs/run.py 89.51% <ø> (+0.15%) ⬆️
openml/runs/functions.py 87.33% <100%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
openml/flows/flow.py 93.86% <100%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
openml/flows/sklearn_converter.py 90.02% <86.74%> (-0.77%) ⬇️
openml/setups/functions.py 94.59% <90%> (+0.09%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ecdf9b1...10b1031. Read the comment docs.

# Only in Python 3.x, as Python 2 has Unicode issues
if sys.version_info[0] >= 3:
self.assertEqual(str(model.get_params()),
str(new_model.get_params()))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A few lines below there's the check self.assertEqual(new_model.get_params(), model.get_params()). Is there a reason to not use that?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, in flow.functions there's a function called assert_flows_equal, would that be helpful in this context and potentially replace a few checks?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this question basically holds for all future occurences of this check. Maybe you could also group all checks into a separate function?

@mfeurer mfeurer merged commit 2375940 into develop Feb 13, 2019
@mfeurer mfeurer deleted the fix602 branch February 13, 2019 14:18
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.

4 participants