-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 87
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
Updated NoVarianceDataCheck to return only Warnings #3506
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3506 +/- ##
=====================================
Coverage 99.7% 99.7%
=====================================
Files 336 336
Lines 33420 33420
=====================================
Hits 33294 33294
Misses 126 126
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@@ -99,9 +99,6 @@ | |||
"metadata": {}, | |||
"outputs": [], | |||
"source": [ | |||
"# let's copy the datetime at row 1 for future use\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
DateTimeFormatDataCheck
isn't run for a binary problem type so all datetime error references are obsolete
@@ -301,47 +292,6 @@ | |||
"results_no_errors = search_iterative(X_train_no_errors, y_train_no_errors, problem_type='binary')\n", | |||
"results_no_errors" | |||
] | |||
}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After these changes, the only error left is that the target has null. That leaves little reason to keep this in, but I think a separate issue should be filed to create a more robust example using more data checks with errors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, please feel free to file and complete!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think once I understand why we're doing this, this looks good to go.
@@ -301,47 +292,6 @@ | |||
"results_no_errors = search_iterative(X_train_no_errors, y_train_no_errors, problem_type='binary')\n", | |||
"results_no_errors" | |||
] | |||
}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, please feel free to file and complete!
No description provided.