-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.9k
TST Extend tests for scipy.sparse.*array
in sklearn/svm/tests/test_sparse
#27723
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
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Mohit Joshi <46566524+work-mohit@users.noreply.github.com>
@jjerphan I have fixed the bug met by @work-mohit, would you like to take a look? |
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 modulo a few changes and a changelog entry.
One last thing: could you add an entry in this section for 1.4's changelog? :) scikit-learn/doc/whats_new/v1.4.rst Lines 132 to 182 in 8db3aac
|
I’m thinking that, I haven’t modified a single line in the source code, which means that sparse arrays are originally supported and not a new feature in this case. As far as I’m concerned, the functions and classes in that section of changelog did not support sparse array previously, either because they were using .dot for sparse matrix multiplication or some more complex reasons. Please let me know if this is not the case :) |
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.
Then LGTM after a green CI.
For some estimators supporting sparse matrices, sparse arrays were supported implicitly.
I thought this section in the changelog was added so that we can report the support of sparse arrays explicitly for all the interfaces covered by the tests, even for the ones which have been supporting them implicitly.
Probably the changelog entry needs to be clarified?
Anyway, thank you, @Charlie-XIAO. :)
Oh wait a minute @jjerphan, I think there are failing CIs. Probably it is because changing |
Feel free to revert this change, we can remove this old, deprecated interface as part of another PR. |
Okay I see, thanks for the response! Though I may have to do that a little bit later. |
Yes, no pressure. :) It is worth enjoying life on weekends. |
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. Thanks @Charlie-XIAO
Towards #27090, continuation of #27511.