[DOC] Enhance Docstrings of Flows Core Public Functions #1569
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1569 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 53.02% 52.72% -0.31%
==========================================
Files 36 36
Lines 4326 4326
==========================================
- Hits 2294 2281 -13
- Misses 2032 2045 +13 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
EmanAbdelhaleem
force-pushed
the
enhance-docstrings
branch
from
1a9b652 to
de22ee7
Compare
SimonBlanke
left a comment
SimonBlanke
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good job. Just a few questions in the code.
| Side Effects | ||
| ------------ | ||
| - None: results are fetched and returned; no local state is modified. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this true? Are there local connection states? And what about caching? 'no local state is modified' is a strong claim.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I meant that it's a read-only operation that doesn't change variables, database or files. I am not sure about flows cuz I haven't gone very deep with its implementation, However, in evaluations, the list function has no caching as far as I know, and I think mostly this is the case for flows too.
Would you suggest modifying this to
None: read-only operation ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'Read only' would be clear. It is easier to understand
| ``strict_version`` is True, an exception will be raised. | ||
| strict_version : bool, optional (default=True) | ||
| When ``reinstantiate`` is True, whether to enforce exact version | ||
| requirements for the extension/model. If False, a fallback flow may |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is not a fallback flow though, is it? It is a new flow:
openml-python/openml/flows/functions.py
Line 137 in de22ee7
Fallback would suggest some sort of 'backup' flow. Is this the case here (it might be)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nope it's not the case, I meant by fallback that it's an alternative flow, but I think fallback might be misleading, I think I will just make it new flow
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay new flow then. It is better to be more precise.
4 participants
Metadata
Details
enhance the docstrings of flows core public functions, add examples, parameter default, parameter type..etc