-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 323
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
Add EMNISTDataModule #676
Add EMNISTDataModule #676
Conversation
Contains `class` BinaryEMNIST as well.
This adds **EMNISTDataModule** `class`.
file added: datamodules/binary_emnist_datamodule.py
Hello @sugatoray! Thanks for updating this PR. There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻 Comment last updated at 2021-08-13 13:04:38 UTC |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #676 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 24.32% 71.67% +47.35%
===========================================
Files 120 120
Lines 7486 7397 -89
===========================================
+ Hits 1821 5302 +3481
+ Misses 5665 2095 -3570
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Changes made in: `datamodules/binary_mnist_datamodule.py` - class ``BinaryEMNISTDataModule` - [x] modified `prepare_data()` - [x] added `setup()`
Changes made in: `datamodules/emnist_datamodule.py` - class `EMNISTDataModule` - [x] modified `prepare_data()` - [x] added `setup()`
- updated docs - updated property: `num_classes` > Now the code shows correct `num_classes` based on the `split` provided by the user.
- updated docs - updated property: `num_classes` > Now the code shows correct `num_classes` based on the `split` provided by the user.
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.
LGTM!
Description of the change: Introduced a new arg strict_val_split: bool
to use the balanced validation set defined in the EMNIST paper.
(always open for any discussions/comments on the API (strict_val_split
) :])
Note: The failing tests are irrelevant to the changes in this PR.
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.
@akihironitta Looks good to me. Thank you, for working on it. I am not sure, if you were waiting for any feedback from me. It seems that this has not been reviewed by other reviewers since your approval. Please let me know if there is something I need to do.
@sugatoray Hi, thanks for having a look again! @PyTorchLightning/core-bolts Would you mind having a look at the changes? |
The failing tests are irrelevant to the change in this PR. pytest summary at c6adbae
|
@PyTorchLightning/core-bolts Could you have another look? |
What does this PR do?
Closes #672, #676 and #685.
A summary of changes and modifications ⭐ 🔥 [CLICK TO EXPAND]
File
Added
:pl_bolts/datasets/emnist_dataset.py
🟢Need New PR or add to #672
File
Added
:pl_bolts/datamodules/emnist_dataset.py
🟢Need New PR or add to #672
Files
Modified
Package:
pl_bolts
pl_bolts/datasets/__init__.py
🟢pl_bolts/datamodules/__init__.py
🟢Tests:
datamodules
:tests/datamodules/test_imports.py
🟢tests/datamodules/test_datamodules.py
WIP
🟠About the dataset
source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.05373.pdf [Table-I]
source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.05373.pdf [Table-II]
Before submitting
Y
🟢Y
🟢Y
🟢Y
🟢Y
🟢Y
🟢PR review
READY
🟢Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed.
If we didn't discuss your PR in Github issues there's a high chance it will not be merged.