-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 842
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
Bug fixes for the FACTS method #533
Conversation
Signed-off-by: phantom-duck <[email protected]>
this part of the code is problematic due to the use of hardcoded feature names. The required functionality should be achieved in some other way. Signed-off-by: phantom-duck <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: phantom-duck <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: phantom-duck <[email protected]>
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.
Hello! Thanks for the feedback. Apologies for the delayed response.
Ok, great, we will see to it as soon as possible and create a new PR.
Of course. So this one I will add to this PR right? |
Yes, please 🙂 |
Signed-off-by: phantom-duck <[email protected]>
Previously, the test case only had inf costs. Consequently, the exact values of the feature weights were not actually tested properly. Signed-off-by: phantom-duck <[email protected]>
Hello again @hoffmansc ! I have now added a test showcasing that the costs are computed correctly (close to the example in #532). Just a question to be sure I understood correctly, is this what you meant? Or by "test case" you mean also to add something to the example notebook for example? Other than, I think we are good to go. |
This is perfect, thanks! |
@hoffmansc
Wrote fixes for the bugs documented in issues #531 and #532.
For the issue of the hard-coded features in the
recIsValid
function (issue #531, code here), the fix currently proposed is a hotfix. The values have not been removed, only the relevant argument's default value has been changed fromTrue
toFalse
.Whether you would like us to remove this part of the code altogether or keep working on it to make it more robust (and if so, in this pull request or a new one), please let me know.
Fixes #531 and #532.