Skip to content
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

fix bug in uncorrelated_mo_rf_with_instances, improve tests #333

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 27, 2017

Conversation

mfeurer
Copy link
Contributor

@mfeurer mfeurer commented Oct 27, 2017

It appears that the previous implementation expected the BaseEPM and the RandomForestWithInstances to accept the same arguments. This is apparently wrong and fixed in this PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@AndreBiedenkapp AndreBiedenkapp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Everything looks good

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Oct 27, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #333 into development will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##           development     #333      +/-   ##
===============================================
+ Coverage        90.12%   90.13%   +0.01%     
===============================================
  Files               45       45              
  Lines             2857     2860       +3     
===============================================
+ Hits              2575     2578       +3     
  Misses             282      282
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
smac/epm/uncorrelated_mo_rf_with_instances.py 78.12% <100%> (+2.26%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 12076f3...103770e. Read the comment docs.

@mfeurer mfeurer merged commit a3884fd into development Oct 27, 2017
@mfeurer mfeurer deleted the fix_umorfwi branch October 27, 2017 13:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants