-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
96 bounds predprob #105
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
96 bounds predprob #105
Conversation
Code Coverage Summary
Diff against main
Results for commit: c661bdf Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
Unit Tests Summary 1 files 15 suites 1m 50s ⏱️ Results for commit 258ae08. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Unit Test Performance Difference
Additional test case details
Results for commit 5aed66e ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
I found some test cases failing and am working on it before I feel confident to request PR. This test case seems to be unrelated to the upper boundary of density in |
I solved it! The test case passed when |
ahh true that - thanks! I added it back now... and |
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.
Thanks @audreyyeoCH , nice work, please see comments below
Co-authored-by: Daniel Sabanes Bove <danielinteractive@users.noreply.github.com>
@@ -1,74 +1,86 @@ | |||
#' Decision cutpoints for boundary (based on predictive probability) | |||
#' Decision cutpoints for boundary (based on predictive probability) for Decision 1 rule. |
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.
Has this been added already?
Co-authored-by: Daniel Sabanes Bove <danielinteractive@users.noreply.github.com>
ok so I had some debugging to do... the the tests are a little more improved too. The first test tests if weights are there, the second builds on what if the weights are there and there are mixed priors. lastly, due to these changes, I wanted to
therefore, I improved the documentation of inherited parameters of |
…tation consistencies
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.
Thanks @audreyyeoCH , almost there!
Btw it would be good to soon come back to a state where only 1 PR is in the works, and the PR is as small as possible. That way, it will be quicker to finish and get to a state where all tests pass etc. again.
Yes for sure! I can focus on this one first since it's the oldest |
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ boundsPredprob <- function(looks, Nmax = max(looks), p0, tT, phiL, phiU, parE = | |||
if (missing(weights)) { | |||
weights <- rep(1, nrow(t(parE))) | |||
} | |||
assert_numeric(weights, min.len = 0, len = nrow(par), finite = TRUE) | |||
assert_numeric(weights, min.len = 0, len = nrow(parE), finite = TRUE) |
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.
If parE
is passed as a vector then this would fail, I guess we also need t(parE)
, as in line 53?
closes #96