-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 402
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
fix ignore_index in the computation of IoU #328
Conversation
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #328 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.08% 96.08%
=======================================
Files 124 124
Lines 3980 3982 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 3824 3826 +2
Misses 156 156
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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.
nice, can we add a test to verify it works as intended now?
@CSautier mind check the failing tests? |
@CSautier how is it going? 🐰 |
Sorry, it slipped out of my mind. However there is one correct tests that my computation does not pass I'm working on it now, and will change my PR if I find a solution. |
Hello @CSautier! Thanks for updating this PR. There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻 Comment last updated at 2021-07-29 16:03:10 UTC |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
I've updated the PR, and included the two modifications I mentioned earlier in the tests. |
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.
LGTM :]
Before submitting
What does this PR do?
Fixes #312
PR review
The way it does is to remove the line and columns of the ignore_index in the confmat. It should work whenever ignore_index is in the correct range but could be tested further.
There are certainly cleaner ways to do this.