Skip to content
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

revisiting tunable() for model specifications #1105

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

simonpcouch
Copy link
Contributor

@simonpcouch simonpcouch commented Apr 5, 2024

Going ahead and PRing now to introduce tests and run GHA with them so I can demonstrate they still pass once I make some upcoming changes.

EDIT: Closes #1104.

simonpcouch added a commit to tidymodels/extratests that referenced this pull request Apr 5, 2024
instead of re-enabling as in #215, test where functionality is defined in tidymodels/parsnip#1105
@simonpcouch
Copy link
Contributor Author

simonpcouch commented Apr 5, 2024

extract_parameter_set_dials() tests fail because they expect anything marked with tune() to appear in tunable() output.

Next steps would be to:

  • Fill out the component_id() column in tune_args() instead of filling with NAs, and
  • Redefine the join as a left join in extract_parameter_set_dials.model_spec() and look for the component_id in tune_args().

If those changes restore previous extract_parameter_set_dials.model_spec() behavior, the next step would be to revise and test tunable() methods in parsnip extensions. :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

tunable.model_spec() includes rows for non-tunable arguments marked with tune()
1 participant