Skip to content
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

populate copier template #38

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 31, 2023
Merged

populate copier template #38

merged 4 commits into from
Oct 31, 2023

Conversation

eacharles
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ def test_flexzboost():
'reg:squarederror'},
'hdf5_groupname': 'photometry',
'model': 'model.tmp'}
estim_config_dict = {'hdf5_groupname': 'photometry',
estim_config_dict = {'zmin': 0.0, 'zmax': 3.0, 'nzbins': 301,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So this is fine to get the tests to pass, but the slightly awkward thing is, when using the basis function parameterization with FZBoost, the zmin and zmax are used in defining the basis functions themselves, and as such, they are stored internally in the FZBoost model params in the inform stage, and thus they are not default parameters in the Estimator stage.

The current mixin class looks for zmin and zmax to calculate the point estimates, but for FlexZBoost in particular, zmin and zmax are required only for the calculation of the point estimates. They are also now essentially required parameters, as we get an error if they are not present. So, maybe we should add zmin and zmax back in to the config_options.update for FlexZBoostEstimator with a msg saying that they are used only for the point estimate calculation?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's subtly different than most of the other estimators where zmin and zmax are required parameters to construct the grid in all cases, that's why I'm mentioning it here, if that makes sense.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 30, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (f52a9e1) 94.48% compared to head (3feef5f) 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main       #38      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   94.48%   100.00%   +5.51%     
===========================================
  Files           1         1              
  Lines         127       127              
  Branches       17         0      -17     
===========================================
+ Hits          120       127       +7     
+ Partials        7         0       -7     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

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

@eacharles eacharles merged commit f5e4ee8 into main Oct 31, 2023
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.

3 participants