-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
No loader on APIs for ValueToKey/OneHotEncoding #2245
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
Merged
+217
−103
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
I've tried to look it up, but github doesn't allow you to smoothly explore file changes if file get renamed.
Why we even have this public constructor?
We already have ValueMapping which accepts IEnumerable for keys and ZeeshanA adding another constructor which accepts IDataView.
Considering all this restriction required on IDataView, don't you think it's easier to use ValueMapping transform?
It just a question, not a PR blocker.
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.
Hi Ivan, I don't understand this question, could you clarify?
Are you asking why there is a public constructor on the estimators? I did not change the public/non-public nature of this constructor of the estimator. If you are pointing out that the estimator constructors should be non-public since we prefer things be created through
MLContext
, I agree, and I believe there is already an issue tracking this, #2100. However, the issue I am addressing here is orthogonal to that. I agree it should be done. I see no one is assigned to it.Also I am not sure what you are talking about w.r.t. another constructor. Certainly I see no other constructor here. I am trying to address the issue I see that whoever did this original estimator API decided, for whatever reason, that using component factories and
IDataLoader
was a great idea, as discussed in the issue. The most obvious way to maintain the same sort of functionality (loading something from a file) is to provide the constructor I have provided. Are you disagreeing with that?Also I did not rename the file?
But maybe I am misunderstanding your question. Perhaps you could clarify.