-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
feature: add joinsource to DataConfig #2718
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
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
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!
General comments to the PR description,
|
src/sagemaker/clarify.py
Outdated
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ def __init__( | |||
label=None, | |||
headers=None, | |||
features=None, | |||
joinsource=None, |
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.
Red flag: for backward-compatibility, new parameters should be put to the end.
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.
Snake style naming like "join_source"?
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.
Updated arguments order.
joinsource
is consistent with how it is used in other places like analysis_config
. So I think we should keep it.
a49c487
to
3d703c4
Compare
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
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
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
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.
The change looks good. Since now it doesn't include a integ test, if you still have the test cases locally my suggestion is that you run them against your indivisual account to validate the E2E workflow.
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
@keerthanvasist have you done the test @xgchena suggested? |
@ahsan-z-khan I am looking into it. I will post here once I am done. |
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.
Waiting on Container changes.
This change is manually E2E tested, and ready to go. |
3a699ab
1399bdb
to
3a699ab
Compare
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
3a699ab
to
1c3a2ad
Compare
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
Description of changes:
Add joinsource to DataConfig.
Joinsource parameter in DataConfig will represent the name of a column in the dataset that acts as an identifier (for instance, while performing a join), and not used for any other computations.
Testing done:
All tests have passed. I have updated unit tests to include joinsource as well.
Merge Checklist
Put an
x
in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your pull request.General
Tests
unique_name_from_base
to create resource names in integ tests (if appropriate)By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.