Improve Documentation of Testing Base Classes in BoTorch #2770
Conversation
This file contains 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
facebook-github-bot
added
the
CLA Signed
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D71198064 |
SamuelGabriel
force-pushed
the
export-D71198064
branch
from
3d4872a to
02b66d8
Compare
SamuelGabriel
added a commit
to SamuelGabriel/botorch
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2025
Summary: I added doc strings (and some abstract methods). I came across the following issues doing so: - There are multiple private functions, like `_get_random_data`. These are used outside, though, thus the editor shows them as unused. Should they maybe not be private instead? - The double naming of `BaseTestProblem` and `functions` is confusing for me. Is there a reason for this? Should we maybe change it to only use one of the two? - Only `TestCorruptedProblemsMixin.rosenbrock_problem` seems to be used from that Mixin. Should we maybe change this to not be a Mixin, but just the rosenbrock variable instad, or not have the `outlier_generator` inside the Mixin? - I think we should delete `rsample_from_base_samples`. It is not used (if my command+click works here properly) and hard to understand. Reviewed By: esantorella Differential Revision: D71198064
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D71198064 |
SamuelGabriel
added a commit
to SamuelGabriel/botorch
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2025
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#2770 I added doc strings (and some abstract methods). I came across the following issues doing so: - There are multiple private functions, like `_get_random_data`. These are used outside, though, thus the editor shows them as unused. Should they maybe not be private instead? - The double naming of `BaseTestProblem` and `functions` is confusing for me. Is there a reason for this? Should we maybe change it to only use one of the two? - Only `TestCorruptedProblemsMixin.rosenbrock_problem` seems to be used from that Mixin. Should we maybe change this to not be a Mixin, but just the rosenbrock variable instad, or not have the `outlier_generator` inside the Mixin? - I think we should delete `rsample_from_base_samples`. It is not used (if my command+click works here properly) and hard to understand. Reviewed By: esantorella Differential Revision: D71198064
SamuelGabriel
force-pushed
the
export-D71198064
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f682781 to
1756faa
Compare
SamuelGabriel
added a commit
to SamuelGabriel/botorch
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2025
Summary: I added doc strings (and some abstract methods). I came across the following issues doing so: - There are multiple private functions, like `_get_random_data`. These are used outside, though, thus the editor shows them as unused. Should they maybe not be private instead? - The double naming of `BaseTestProblem` and `functions` is confusing for me. Is there a reason for this? Should we maybe change it to only use one of the two? - Only `TestCorruptedProblemsMixin.rosenbrock_problem` seems to be used from that Mixin. Should we maybe change this to not be a Mixin, but just the rosenbrock variable instad, or not have the `outlier_generator` inside the Mixin? - I think we should delete `rsample_from_base_samples`. It is not used (if my command+click works here properly) and hard to understand. Reviewed By: esantorella Differential Revision: D71198064
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D71198064 |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2770 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.99% 99.99%
=======================================
Files 202 202
Lines 18499 18508 +9
=======================================
+ Hits 18498 18507 +9
Misses 1 1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
SamuelGabriel
added a commit
to SamuelGabriel/botorch
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2025
Summary: I added doc strings (and some abstract methods). I came across the following issues doing so: - There are multiple private functions, like `_get_random_data`. These are used outside, though, thus the editor shows them as unused. Should they maybe not be private instead? - The double naming of `BaseTestProblem` and `functions` is confusing for me. Is there a reason for this? Should we maybe change it to only use one of the two? - Only `TestCorruptedProblemsMixin.rosenbrock_problem` seems to be used from that Mixin. Should we maybe change this to not be a Mixin, but just the rosenbrock variable instad, or not have the `outlier_generator` inside the Mixin? - I think we should delete `rsample_from_base_samples`. It is not used (if my command+click works here properly) and hard to understand. Reviewed By: esantorella Differential Revision: D71198064
SamuelGabriel
force-pushed
the
export-D71198064
branch
from
1756faa to
48e67ff
Compare
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D71198064 |
SamuelGabriel
added a commit
to SamuelGabriel/botorch
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2025
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#2770 I added doc strings (and some abstract methods). I came across the following issues doing so: - There are multiple private functions, like `_get_random_data`. These are used outside, though, thus the editor shows them as unused. Should they maybe not be private instead? - The double naming of `BaseTestProblem` and `functions` is confusing for me. Is there a reason for this? Should we maybe change it to only use one of the two? - Only `TestCorruptedProblemsMixin.rosenbrock_problem` seems to be used from that Mixin. Should we maybe change this to not be a Mixin, but just the rosenbrock variable instad, or not have the `outlier_generator` inside the Mixin? - I think we should delete `rsample_from_base_samples`. It is not used (if my command+click works here properly) and hard to understand. Reviewed By: esantorella Differential Revision: D71198064
SamuelGabriel
force-pushed
the
export-D71198064
branch
from
48e67ff to
691572d
Compare
SamuelGabriel
added a commit
to SamuelGabriel/botorch
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2025
Summary: I added doc strings (and some abstract methods). I came across the following issues doing so: - There are multiple private functions, like `_get_random_data`. These are used outside, though, thus the editor shows them as unused. Should they maybe not be private instead? - The double naming of `BaseTestProblem` and `functions` is confusing for me. Is there a reason for this? Should we maybe change it to only use one of the two? - Only `TestCorruptedProblemsMixin.rosenbrock_problem` seems to be used from that Mixin. Should we maybe change this to not be a Mixin, but just the rosenbrock variable instad, or not have the `outlier_generator` inside the Mixin? - I think we should delete `rsample_from_base_samples`. It is not used (if my command+click works here properly) and hard to understand. Reviewed By: esantorella Differential Revision: D71198064
SamuelGabriel
force-pushed
the
export-D71198064
branch
from
691572d to
f2980d1
Compare
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#2770 I added doc strings (and some abstract methods). I came across the following issues doing so: - There are multiple private functions, like `_get_random_data`. These are used outside, though, thus the editor shows them as unused. Should they maybe not be private instead? - The double naming of `BaseTestProblem` and `functions` is confusing for me. Is there a reason for this? Should we maybe change it to only use one of the two? - Only `TestCorruptedProblemsMixin.rosenbrock_problem` seems to be used from that Mixin. Should we maybe change this to not be a Mixin, but just the rosenbrock variable instad, or not have the `outlier_generator` inside the Mixin? - I think we should delete `rsample_from_base_samples`. It is not used (if my command+click works here properly) and hard to understand. Reviewed By: esantorella Differential Revision: D71198064
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D71198064 |
SamuelGabriel
force-pushed
the
export-D71198064
branch
from
f2980d1 to
971d443
Compare
|
This pull request has been merged in 44b6400. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
I added doc strings, and some abstract methods and we renamed some of the actually public functions, that had a leading
_.