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

Minor fixes #891

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jul 3, 2024
Merged

Minor fixes #891

merged 6 commits into from
Jul 3, 2024

Conversation

kbattocchi
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

Signed-off-by: Keith Battocchi <kebatt@microsoft.com>
@fverac fverac linked an issue Jun 28, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Signed-off-by: Keith Battocchi <kebatt@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Battocchi <kebatt@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Battocchi <kebatt@microsoft.com>
@kbattocchi kbattocchi force-pushed the kebatt/minorFixes branch 2 times, most recently from fd2c545 to fb16c66 Compare June 28, 2024 16:26
@@ -321,8 +321,8 @@ def test_non_standard_input(self,):
model_propensity=DummyClassifier(strategy='uniform'),
featurizer=PolynomialFeatures(degree=1, include_bias=False),
cv=GroupKFold(n_splits=2),
n_estimators=20, n_jobs=1, random_state=123).fit(y, T, X=X,
groups=groups)
n_estimators=100, n_jobs=1, random_state=123).fit(y, T, X=X,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this for test stability?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because n_estimators was never passed correctly to DRPolicyForest in the past, this has always effectively run with n_estimators=100 (the default value), and the tests don't pass if we actually pass 20 through instead.

Signed-off-by: Keith Battocchi <kebatt@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Battocchi <kebatt@microsoft.com>
@imatiach-msft
Copy link
Contributor

this looks great, thank you - when can a new version be released to pypi so we can depend on it?

@imatiach-msft
Copy link
Contributor

just a gentle ping on the ETA for this fix, as we need it to resolve a security vulnerability in scikit-learn

@kbattocchi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

just a gentle ping on the ETA for this fix, as we need it to resolve a security vulnerability in scikit-learn

We hope to put out a bugfix release containing these fixes by the end of this week.

@kbattocchi kbattocchi marked this pull request as ready for review July 2, 2024 19:36
Copy link
Collaborator

@fverac fverac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good!

@kbattocchi kbattocchi merged commit 8b1d1fb into main Jul 3, 2024
190 of 193 checks passed
@kbattocchi kbattocchi deleted the kebatt/minorFixes branch July 3, 2024 14:25
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.

Support scikit-learn 1.5.0
3 participants