Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

DOC Ensures that sklearn.utils.validation.has_fit_parameter passes numpydoc validation #21471

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

Closed
wants to merge 19 commits into from

Conversation

reshamas
Copy link
Member

Reference Issues/PRs

Addresses #21350

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

NumPy errors + formatting

Any other comments?

#DataUmbrella sprint

@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
"sklearn.utils.validation.check_memory",
"sklearn.utils.validation.check_random_state",
"sklearn.utils.validation.column_or_1d",
"sklearn.utils.validation.has_fit_parameter",
# "sklearn.utils.validation.has_fit_parameter",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems that you changed more than just this function. You might want to uncomment all the functions that you modified to be sure that there is not other problem

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@glemaitre I thought that when I changed this file, it was only related to one function. But, now I see it's all those functions in one file. But, I didn't run the pytest on those other functions, I only fixed putting backticks on the parameters.
Also, sometimes I don't know where the error is (what line number), so I believe what I do is make the change in a function until the error goes away.

I can work on the other 6 functions within validation, but in separate PRs, because I just ran pytest against the others and there are still errors which need to be fixed separate for each of them.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK fine with me. The thing is that you could have delayed the change with the backtick for the other PRs as well. Like this, the scope of the changes is really limited to a single place.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will keep that in mind for the future. :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To avoid introducing confusing unnecessary merge conflicts with other concurrent PRs by first time contributors also working on #21350, I would rather have PRs only focused on a specific function at a time.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@reshamas I guess what @ogrisel is asking, is to revert the changes which are not related to the function you're directly addressing in this PR, and to open a separate PR for them, which I agree with, especially if it helps with fewer merge conflicts with other PRs.

Could you elaborate what the output you see is, so that we could maybe help you find the relevant places to fix?

@reshamas
Copy link
Member Author

@ogrisel @glemaitre
I just had a discussion with @thomasjpfan on this PR during office hours.
I will submit an updated (or new) PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants