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

Make validation error raising optional #248

Open
2 tasks
dfulu opened this issue Feb 24, 2025 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #252
Open
2 tasks

Make validation error raising optional #248

dfulu opened this issue Feb 24, 2025 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #252
Assignees

Comments

@dfulu
Copy link
Member

dfulu commented Feb 24, 2025

We have a few forecast validation functions which do some sanity checking on the forecast. For example the functions here.

These functions will crash the forecast if something goes wrong. This means that we will not log these bad forecasts to our database and we will not record them. This makes it harder for us to analyse what went wrong and to try to improve our forecast.

The app also has the option to run multiple forecast models simultaneously. These validation will crash the app and log no forecasts, if a single one of these models produces a bad forecast. Again, this is bad.

We should

  • Make the validation functions optional so that we can collect the bad forecast results in our dev environment
  • Change the way we use the validation functions so that one model producing a bad forecast will not stop all models from logging their forecasts
@dfulu dfulu added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 24, 2025
@utsav-pal utsav-pal linked a pull request Feb 24, 2025 that will close this issue
5 tasks
@utsav-pal
Copy link
Contributor

please check it

@peterdudfield peterdudfield removed the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 25, 2025
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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants