Fix edit api #940
Merged
Fix edit api #940
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
PGijsbers
reviewed
Aug 6, 2020
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #940 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 87.79% 87.78% -0.02%
===========================================
Files 37 37
Lines 4433 4437 +4
===========================================
+ Hits 3892 3895 +3
- Misses 541 542 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
PGijsbers
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2020
mfeurer
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 2, 2020
* Create first section: Creating Custom Flow * Add Section: Using the Flow It is incomplete as while trying to explain how to format the predictions, I realized a utility function is required. * Allow run description text to be custom Previously the description text that accompanies the prediction file was auto-generated with the assumption that the corresponding flow had an extension. To support custom flows (with no extension), this behavior had to be changed. The description can now be passed on initialization. The description describing it was auto generated from run_task is now correctly only added if the run was generated through run_flow_on_task. * Draft for Custom Flow tutorial * Add minimal docstring to OpenMLRun I am not for each field what the specifications are. * Process code review feedback In particular: - text changes - fetch true labels from the dataset instead * Use the format utility function in automatic runs To format the predictions. * Process @mfeurer feedback * Rename arguments of list_evaluations (#933) * list evals name change * list evals - update * adding config file to user guide (#931) * adding config file to user guide * finished requested changes * Edit api (#935) * version1 * minor fixes * tests * reformat code * check new version * remove get data * code format * review comments * fix duplicate * type annotate * example * tests for exceptions * fix pep8 * black format * Adding support for scikit-learn > 0.22 (#936) * Preliminary changes * Updating unit tests for sklearn 0.22 and above * Triggering sklearn tests + fixes * Refactoring to inspect.signature in extensions * Add flake8-print in pre-commit (#939) * Add flake8-print in pre-commit config * Replace print statements with logging * Fix edit api (#940) * fix edit api * Update subflow paragraph * Check the ClassificationTask has class label set * Test task is of supported type * Add tests for format_prediction * Adding Python 3.8 support (#916) * Adding Python 3.8 support * Fixing indentation * Execute test cases for 3.8 * Testing * Making install script fail * Process feedback Neeratyoy * Test Exception with Regex Also throw NotImplementedError instead of TypeError for unsupported task types. Added links in the example. * change edit_api to reflect server (#941) * change edit_api to reflect server * change test and example to reflect rest API changes * tutorial comments * Update datasets_tutorial.py * Create first section: Creating Custom Flow * Add Section: Using the Flow It is incomplete as while trying to explain how to format the predictions, I realized a utility function is required. * Allow run description text to be custom Previously the description text that accompanies the prediction file was auto-generated with the assumption that the corresponding flow had an extension. To support custom flows (with no extension), this behavior had to be changed. The description can now be passed on initialization. The description describing it was auto generated from run_task is now correctly only added if the run was generated through run_flow_on_task. * Draft for Custom Flow tutorial * Add minimal docstring to OpenMLRun I am not for each field what the specifications are. * Process code review feedback In particular: - text changes - fetch true labels from the dataset instead * Use the format utility function in automatic runs To format the predictions. * Process @mfeurer feedback * Update subflow paragraph * Check the ClassificationTask has class label set * Test task is of supported type * Add tests for format_prediction * Process feedback Neeratyoy * Test Exception with Regex Also throw NotImplementedError instead of TypeError for unsupported task types. Added links in the example. Co-authored-by: Bilgecelik <38037323+Bilgecelik@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: marcoslbueno <38478211+marcoslbueno@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Sahithya Ravi <44670788+sahithyaravi1493@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Neeratyoy Mallik <neeratyoy@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: zikun <33176974+zikun@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reference Issue
What does this PR implement/fix? Explain your changes.
the get_arff function is not reliable and sometimes causes errors for dense vs sparse datasets.
I have fixed this by using get_data instead.
The get_arff did not work for some dense datasets. When we use the data returned by get_arff to construct the new dataset, it resulted in errors during dataset publish.
How should this PR be tested?
Any other comments?
This api is going to change based on server changes in future. We are going to get rid of the cloning except when data itself changes