-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
Rework validation for measurements
and pending_experiments
#456
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @Scienfitz, thanks the refactor 🏗️ Below my comments
0a42492
to
a412305
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Co-authored-by: AdrianSosic <[email protected]>
7056db6
to
969dea4
Compare
After a pause I reanalzyed the outstanding issues here:
Solution Proposal:
|
Fixes #453
Notes re
measurements
validationadd_measurements
andfuzzy_row_match
fuzzy_row_match
does not perform any validation anymoreadd_measurements
now simply calls the utilitiesNotes re
pending_experiments
validationpending_experiments
has been addedRemaining problem:
The places of validation for
measurements
andpending_experiments
are inconsistent. The former is done in the campaign and not in any recommender, the latter is not done in the campaign but done in the recommender. One of the issues is thatnumerical_measurements_must_be_within_tolerance
is not available for recommenders, but its required for the parameter input validation.Suggestion:
Imo we dont want to add more keywords to
.recommend
or so, hence thepending_experiments
validation currently assumesnumerical_measurements_must_be_within_tolerance=False
and cannot be configured otherwise. To me it seems the simplest solution would be to completely get rid of anynumerical_measurements_must_be_within_tolerance
keywords and make it an environment variable, we wouldn't have to worry about its availability anymore and it would require adding it to more and more signatures.