-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
chore: Adding more tests for On Demand Feature Views #4069
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
066880f
checking in progress...trying to fix tests
franciscojavierarceo 79e6edc
testing more...
franciscojavierarceo 262c586
fixed
franciscojavierarceo 0ebfe7d
fixed some tests
franciscojavierarceo 270f6c0
fixed test and serialization
franciscojavierarceo 3574bcc
removed commented out code
franciscojavierarceo 1d3745d
lint
franciscojavierarceo 255ba05
added a test to make it explicit that feature calculation must happen…
franciscojavierarceo 924ebd5
linter
franciscojavierarceo File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
fixed some tests
Signed-off-by: Francisco Javier Arceo <franciscojavierarceo@users.noreply.github.com>
- Loading branch information
commit 0ebfe7d5f3192c197dfa0e50e9fa8cf091eb208a
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
I'm still a little confused about the required signature here. Are these functions supposed to accept a dict of lists (looks like that in this test) and apply the udf for all entities at once? I thought from the previous PR that the goal was to have a udf that would be applied to individual entities...
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.
Can you also alter the tests so that more than one entity is passed? this will probably fail in such a case as only first entity is processed. If we are sticking with this signature, udf should look something like this:
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.
If you look at
_infer_features_dictyou'll see it expects a dict of lists. I added an explicit test that shows this will result in a type failure when running the apply operations. We can add singleton execution as a follow up but this is sufficient to highlight the currently supported behavior and then we can cut a release.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.
@franciscojavierarceo got it, good... that's probably more efficient anyway. no rush, but in that case it will probably be a good idea to change type annotations for relevant functions to
Dict[str, List[Any]].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.
I actually originally had that setup but I received a ton of type failures from that which is why I did it this way.
Let me address both of those as folllowups. I want to merge this and cut a release.
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.
I made an issue here #4075, will close it later.