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

move model instantiation inside loop #93

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 10, 2024
Merged

move model instantiation inside loop #93

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 10, 2024

Conversation

jgallowa07
Copy link
Collaborator

This addresses #92

@jgallowa07 jgallowa07 requested a review from jbloom January 9, 2024 23:20
@jgallowa07
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jgallowa07 commented Jan 9, 2024

Seems that the tests are failing due to

Run nbqa ruff .
/usr/share/miniconda/envs/dms-vep-pipeline-3/bin/python3.11: No module named ruff
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.

Not exactly sure why this is happening. Looking into it now

Update
I see you're working with the same issue now and decided to remove the notebook linting. I'll wait till you merge #94 - then rebase this branch.

@jbloom
Copy link
Contributor

jbloom commented Jan 10, 2024

I am going to look at your pulls soon (was behind)---but yes, the failures were because ruff is now supposed to run directly on notebooks rather than via nbqa as was done prior to the pull request I just made.

@jgallowa07 jgallowa07 force-pushed the 92_shift_fitting_bug branch from 0697374 to a1d0784 Compare January 10, 2024 00:54
@jgallowa07
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Great, seems to be working now. Thanks to @Caleb-Carr for getting me to do this - and apologies for not making this patch a priority over the rest of #86. I realize this is non-trivial so it's worth mentioning to others who are looking at these results. The main problem this bug introduces is that the chosen lasso_shift average model would essentially represent the training of all lasso_shifts preceding it.

I am going to look at your pulls soon (was behind) --

No rush on my end, I'm in a similar boat - #91 is still a WIP so nothing to look at currently - later this week hopefully.

Copy link
Contributor

@jbloom jbloom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. I'm not sure if the prior behavior was a bug strictly speaking (that is also a way to do it, right?) but I'm fine with this change.

@jbloom jbloom linked an issue Jan 10, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@jbloom jbloom merged commit b8e5501 into main Jan 10, 2024
1 check passed
@jbloom jbloom deleted the 92_shift_fitting_bug branch January 10, 2024 21:50
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.

multidms fitting bug in func_effect_shifts.ipynb
2 participants