-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
Image transforms become Estimators #753
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 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
20 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
70d7611
Converted ImageLoaderTransform to be an Estimator/Transformer pair
1eeda48
Temp commit
5e32910
Another temp checkin
f0469e1
WIP 3
d2073eb
Added image resizers
f05ec52
Pixel extractor
a03994b
Minor fix
ef5cb62
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into feature/image-est…
55b33af
Fixed build
ac46be9
PR comments
013bfa4
Merge
11aa1fc
Added grayscale transform
281e731
wip one to one
baa5c34
Finished the mockup of one-to-one transformer base class.
245c344
Converted to inherit from base class
e7dc348
Workout test
d8c0648
Minor changes
3e845fd
PR comments
fe5374f
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into feature/image-est…
e660eeb
Fixed build
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
This is somewhat problematic for key columns. How do we represent the two distinct concepts of a key-columns of known and unknown counts? #Pending
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Well,
ItemTypeis never supposed to be a key. For example, for a scalar key column, the correct representation isKind = Scalar, ItemType = PrimitiveType.U4, IsKey = true.I think I should enforce it in constructor even.
I don't think we should even have key types of unknown counts: it is already causing issues for
Termtransform, and I'm yet to see any benefit of this type.In reply to: 213151407 [](ancestors = 213151407)
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 agree that keys of unknown size should go away, but are we going to do this in this PR?
That we're representing a key-type using a column type which is not a key-type at all, and whose only connection to it is that their
DataKindhappen to be the same, is rather odd and unfortunate. I hope we can imagine a better way here, though I'm not sure I see one right off the bat.In reply to: 213156549 [](ancestors = 213156549,213151407)
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.
We are also representing a vector type using a column type which is not a vector-type at all, and whose only connection to it is that their
ItemTypehappen to be the same :)In reply to: 214125274 [](ancestors = 214125274,213156549,213151407)