Update data check message to include a "code" and "details" fields #1451
Conversation
…o 1430_data_check_jsons
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1451 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 100.0% 100.0% +0.1%
=========================================
Files 222 223 +1
Lines 14891 14930 +39
=========================================
+ Hits 14884 14923 +39
Misses 7 7
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
angela97lin
requested review from
freddyaboulton,
dsherry,
bchen1116,
christopherbunn and
eccabay
| if set(unique_values) != set([0, 1]): | ||
| messages["errors"].append(DataCheckError("Numerical binary classification target classes must be [0, 1], got [{}] instead".format(", ".join([str(val) for val in unique_values])), self.name).to_dict()) | ||
| messages["warnings"].append(DataCheckWarning(message="Numerical binary classification target classes must be [0, 1], got [{}] instead".format(", ".join([str(val) for val in unique_values])), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't think about it until now but this check could potentially blow up if a large regression dataset is used. The message would get super long because we include all unique values. Would be a good thing to file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dsherry Right, but that's why we have problem_type passed in for the initialization of InvalidTargetDataCheck, right? Or are you concerned if the user accidentally passes in the wrong problem type?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, that's what I was thinking, if someone accidentally ran binary classification with a regression target. One quick way around this would be to show the number of uniques and the counts of the 100 most frequent uniques instead of the counts of all the uniques!
No need to add this to this PR heh. But this would be great to file as a performance enhancement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, got it! Filed #1460 :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @angela97lin ! I think this is great. My only comment is that enums are not actually json serializable so we should convert to it to string in validate!
|
Oh shoot, that's a super great point @freddyaboulton , that python enums aren't JSON serializable. Yes, let's include the stringified version of the enum. (@angela97lin ) |
|
@freddyaboulton @dsherry Ah, really good point--Will update this to include the stringified versions instead. Thanks for catching this! |
Closes #1430
Also addresses #1422 by converting the check for binary classification targets != {0, 1} to return a warning instead of an error.