-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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
Remove samples
and keep_size
from sample_posterior_predictive
#6029
Remove samples
and keep_size
from sample_posterior_predictive
#6029
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6029 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.58% 93.58% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 101 101
Lines 22151 22136 -15
==========================================
- Hits 20731 20716 -15
Misses 1420 1420
|
Thanks! I took a quick look at the test failures. They are due to the lack of chain dimension in the asserts in many/most cases:
Can you take a look at the logs and see if you can update the asserts on shapes that need to be modified? |
Thanks for looking at the logs, @OriolAbril. I will take care of that during the weekend! |
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.
Looks great, I left some minor suggestions
@OriolAbril @pibieta @vitaliset |
Yes, we have an idea @reshamas . I will work on it today, I just didn't have time to work on this PR. |
@pibieta @vitaliset Let me know if you want me to rehash what we discussed on Friday. Thanks again for your contribution(s)! |
Hi @pibieta @vitaliset, |
I think there was a question (probably for @ricardoV94 ) about the p-value in one failing test. That was at least 1 remaining thing. There may have been others. |
Which test is it? Is the test failing systematically when running locally? |
added ricardo's suggestion 2 Co-authored-by: Ricardo Vieira <28983449+ricardoV94@users.noreply.github.com>
221847b
to
c343010
Compare
Thanks for your work @pibieta and @vitaliset, I hope you don't mind I took over the PR to get it over the finish line. I will do further changes to sample_posterior_predictive (see #6208 ) and having merged this will make things a bit easier. Moreover, my other PR would have introduced many more git conflicts if merged before this one, making it even more hard to get this PR back to good shape and ready to merge. |
Thanks for taking over this PR, @OriolAbril ! We were actually having trouble to fix the tests, so I think the best was for you to take over, haha. We will be working on other issues from now on. Thanks again, Oriol! |
Removed
samples
andkeep_size
fromsample_posterior_predictive
insampling.py
In response to issue #5775, we removed the
samples
andkeep_size
parameters on thesample_posterior_predictive
function. Consequently, we removed all the calls to these two variables inside the functions and edited the code such that it runs askeep_size
was alwaysTrue
even though the variable is not actually defined.Regarding the
samples
parameter, it is defined by the trace object inside the function, so there was no need for it be a function parameter.Moreover, we edited the all test functions that used these two parameters.
Pre-commit and linting tests were passed.
#DataUmbrellaPyMCSprint
P.D.: Thanks for all the help to @OriolAbril !
cc: @vitaliset @OriolAbril @reshamas