Update doc-strings to meet new standard #12
Conversation
minor renaming of constant rm MLJModelInterface [compat] for testing with unreleased branch further tweaks
|
@bkamins Am responding to your comment here. There has already been some discussion about what features are accepted by DecisionTree.jl: See #10 and https://github.com/bensadeghi/DecisionTree.jl/issues/92 . I believe the statement in DecisionTree.jl readme does have a bug - which I just reported here. What I believe is accurate is that DecisionTree accepts any feature for which I couldn't find any mention of missing value support in the DecisionTree.jl readme - could you point this out to me? I doubt features can have missing values, as this breaks ordering (the BetaML tree models do support missing however). I imagine missing values in the target are possibly allowed, but I can't find this documented. |
I just manually checked that they were allowed in target - i.e. the model was built without error (but I do not know if then they are dropped or considered as a separate class) |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #12 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.52% 83.72% +0.19%
==========================================
Files 1 1
Lines 85 86 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 71 72 +1
Misses 14 14
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
This PR needs:
This PR is simultaneously a genuine draft PR to revise the DecisionTree document strings, and a live proposal of what the new standard for doc-strings should look like. General discussion of the standard should go here. However, specific line-by-line comments can also be made in this PR in the usual way.