Bugfix: adding rounding to calculation of unspecified sample size#747
Open
Bugfix: adding rounding to calculation of unspecified sample size#747
Conversation
Member
|
This seems like a fine and concise solution to me. |
hristog
reviewed
Apr 1, 2021
|
|
||
| if train_size is None and test_size is not None: | ||
| train_size = 1 - test_size | ||
| train_size = round(1 - test_size, 6) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps, the number 6 could be promoted to a named variable to avoid copy-and-paste bugs upon possible updates to this.
Also, I think for some users, the value 6 wouldn't be as effective, as it would for others. Perhaps, this warrants a consideration for introducing a configurable parameter. If such parameter is absent, some default value (eg, 6, as it has been the choice here) could be used as a fallback.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A proposed solution to #746. I ran tests like this to confirm it works across expected values: