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

Rename threshold_keys #147

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 15, 2024
Merged

Rename threshold_keys #147

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 15, 2024

Conversation

teubert
Copy link
Contributor

@teubert teubert commented Jul 12, 2024

Rename threshold_keys to events to align with terminology in predictor. threshold_keys will still work, but will warn. added test and updated examples

Copy link

Thank you for opening this PR. Each PR into dev requires a code review. For the code review, look at the following:

  • Reviewer (someone other than author) should look for bugs, efficiency, readability, testing, and coverage in examples (if relevant).
  • Ensure that each PR adding a new feature should include a test verifying that feature.
  • All errors from static analysis must be resolved.
  • Review the test coverage reports (if there is a change) - will be added as comment on PR if there is a change
  • Review the software benchmarking results (if there is a change) - will be added as comment on PR
  • Any added dependencies are included in requirements.txt, setup.py, and dev_guide.rst (this document)
  • All warnings from static analysis must be reviewed and resolved - if deemed appropriate.

@teubert teubert requested a review from kjjarvis July 12, 2024 23:18
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.52542% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.36%. Comparing base (0980f8c) to head (1ace59a).
Report is 37 commits behind head on dev.

Files Patch % Lines
src/progpy/prognostics_model.py 81.81% 4 Missing ⚠️
src/progpy/data_models/lstm_model.py 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #147      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.41%   83.36%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         100      100              
  Lines       10462    10553      +91     
==========================================
+ Hits         8727     8797      +70     
- Misses       1735     1756      +21     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@kjjarvis kjjarvis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a nice change for clear language use. All tests and notebooks run successfully

examples/01_Simulation.ipynb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -1293,7 +1293,7 @@
"orig_nbformat": 4,
"vscode": {
"interpreter": {
"hash": "aee8b7b246df8f9039afb4144a1f6fd8d2ca17a180786b69acc140d282b71a49"
"hash": "1a1af0ee75eeea9e2e1ee996c87e7a2b11a0bebd85af04bb136d915cefc0abce"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this be deleted?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Argh- Git doesn't handle jupyter notebooks very well.

This isn't a problem, so I'm going to ignore it.

Co-authored-by: Katy Jarvis Griffith <55932920+kjjarvis@users.noreply.github.com>
@teubert teubert merged commit 380efd2 into dev Jul 15, 2024
27 of 29 checks passed
@teubert teubert deleted the feature/t_keys_to_events branch July 15, 2024 21:56
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.

3 participants