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

Remove Assertion SyntaxWarning for IES Workshop #2097

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 30, 2023

Conversation

dylanjm
Copy link
Collaborator

@dylanjm dylanjm commented Mar 30, 2023


Pull Request Description

What issue does this change request address? (Use "#" before the issue to link it, i.e., #42.)

#1806

What are the significant changes in functionality due to this change request?

No changes in functionality. Just removes developer level syntax warnings that users don't need to see.


For Change Control Board: Change Request Review

The following review must be completed by an authorized member of the Change Control Board.

  • 1. Review all computer code.
  • 2. If any changes occur to the input syntax, there must be an accompanying change to the user manual and xsd schema. If the input syntax change deprecates existing input files, a conversion script needs to be added (see Conversion Scripts).
  • 3. Make sure the Python code and commenting standards are respected (camelBack, etc.) - See on the wiki for details.
  • 4. Automated Tests should pass, including run_tests, pylint, manual building and xsd tests. If there are changes to Simulation.py or JobHandler.py the qsub tests must pass.
  • 5. If significant functionality is added, there must be tests added to check this. Tests should cover all possible options. Multiple short tests are preferred over one large test. If new development on the internal JobHandler parallel system is performed, a cluster test must be added setting, in XML block, the node <internalParallel> to True.
  • 6. If the change modifies or adds a requirement or a requirement based test case, the Change Control Board's Chair or designee also needs to approve the change. The requirements and the requirements test shall be in sync.
  • 7. The merge request must reference an issue. If the issue is closed, the issue close checklist shall be done.
  • 8. If an analytic test is changed/added is the the analytic documentation updated/added?
  • 9. If any test used as a basis for documentation examples (currently found in raven/tests/framework/user_guide and raven/docs/workshop) have been changed, the associated documentation must be reviewed and assured the text matches the example.

@dylanjm dylanjm requested a review from wangcj05 March 30, 2023 15:37
wangcj05
wangcj05 previously approved these changes Mar 30, 2023
Copy link
Collaborator

@wangcj05 wangcj05 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

changes are good.

@dylanjm
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dylanjm commented Mar 30, 2023

@wangcj05 @alfoa I think the failing tests by fixing this assert indicate a more significant problem in FeatureSelection. Previously the assert was being evaluated as a non-empty tuple and missing the second optional argument. So it would always evaluate to true (in python non-empty tuples are truthy)

We can either remove this assert or fix the underlying issue. Let me know when these changes can be made and I can close this PR.

@@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ def screenAndTrainEstimator(Xreduced, yreduced, estimator, support, params, incl
@ In, addOnKeys, list, optional, list of additional keys to remove
@ Out, None
"""
assert (not issubclass(estimator.__class__, SupervisedLearning.SupervisedLearning),
f"estimator class str(estimator.__class__) is not a SupervisedLearning derived class")
assert not issubclass(estimator.__class__, SupervisedLearning.SupervisedLearning), \
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you should remove "not" from this check. I have checked on my computer, and tests passed. @dylanjm

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, removed not and re-pushed.

@wangcj05
Copy link
Collaborator

Checklist is good. PR can be merged.

@wangcj05 wangcj05 merged commit 6817cb9 into idaholab:devel Mar 30, 2023
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.

2 participants