-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Implementing initial on demand transforms for historical retrieval to_df #1824
Conversation
Now that #1803 has been merged in, can you update this diff to only have the changes for the historical retrieval API? |
Signed-off-by: Danny Chiao <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danny Chiao <[email protected]>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1824 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.60% 84.60% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 94 94
Lines 6946 6989 +43
==========================================
+ Hits 5877 5913 +36
- Misses 1069 1076 +7
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Done! |
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.
It seems like the on demand feature views are not being consumed by the jobs anywhere - is that intentional?
@property | ||
@abstractmethod | ||
def full_feature_names(self) -> bool: | ||
pass | ||
|
||
@property | ||
@abstractmethod | ||
def on_demand_feature_views(self) -> Optional[List[OnDemandFeatureView]]: | ||
pass |
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.
Why are we changing the API for the base class here and adding these fields? Are they necessary?
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.
NVM, I see why they're needed now. While I think this is okay for a first pass I want to see if we can get away from adding these additional fields on to the job. I think they are pretty inelegant for a user to have to implement themselves.
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
@property | ||
@abstractmethod | ||
def full_feature_names(self) -> bool: | ||
pass | ||
|
||
@property | ||
@abstractmethod | ||
def on_demand_feature_views(self) -> Optional[List[OnDemandFeatureView]]: | ||
pass |
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.
NVM, I see why they're needed now. While I think this is okay for a first pass I want to see if we can get away from adding these additional fields on to the job. I think they are pretty inelegant for a user to have to implement themselves.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: achals, adchia The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Sets up a limited on demand transform for historical retrieval for to_df (not to_arrow yet)
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: