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

simplify concept of outcome type in the package #14

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 2, 2024
Merged

Conversation

simonpcouch
Copy link
Contributor

@simonpcouch simonpcouch commented May 2, 2024

Closes #13 and closes #11. This PR:

  • Removes container(mode).
  • Renames the type argument of adjust_*_calibration() to adjust_*calibration(method).

So, in the package,

  • "type" refers to the sub-mode of the container, i.e. one of "regression", "binary", or "multiclass".
  • "method" refers to the technique used to estimate the calibrator.

Notably, re: #13, this PR doesn't collapse adjust_*_calibration() into one function nor does it remove the option to define what is now type or method at specification time. I'm still intrigued at whether we could collapse adjust_*_calibration() into one function, but there's enough complexity there that it ought to live in its own PR.

@simonpcouch simonpcouch requested a review from topepo May 2, 2024 19:29
@simonpcouch simonpcouch merged commit 1412531 into main May 2, 2024
1 check passed
@simonpcouch simonpcouch deleted the simplify-type branch May 2, 2024 21:24
@simonpcouch
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've convinced myself that merging the two adjust_*_calibration() functions isn't a step forward for the interface at this point, so will leave #13 closed. :)

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.

reducing complexity in outcome type declaration restore option for missing mode
2 participants