Skip to content

⚡ Version 0.5.1 #178

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
merged 11 commits into from
May 23, 2025
Merged

⚡ Version 0.5.1 #178

merged 11 commits into from
May 23, 2025

Conversation

o-laurent
Copy link
Contributor

@o-laurent o-laurent commented May 22, 2025

Fix the scaler and continue reworking the conformal methods for classification.

@o-laurent o-laurent requested a review from alafage May 22, 2025 16:01
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 22, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.75776% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 98.19%. Comparing base (3fa0899) to head (61791aa).
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
torch_uncertainty/routines/pixel_regression.py 33.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #178      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.14%   98.19%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         167      167              
  Lines        8728     8662      -66     
  Branches     1107     1107              
==========================================
- Hits         8566     8506      -60     
+ Misses        103      101       -2     
+ Partials       59       55       -4     
Flag Coverage Δ
pytest 98.19% <98.75%> (+0.05%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@o-laurent o-laurent self-assigned this May 22, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@alafage alafage left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @o-laurent !

Not sure about the typing of **factory_args or **kwargs in general, though. Is it really necessary?

@o-laurent
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @o-laurent !

Not sure about the typing of **factory_args or **kwargs in general, though. Is it really necessary?

We can solve this in the next PR if that's fine?

@o-laurent o-laurent marked this pull request as ready for review May 23, 2025 08:45
@o-laurent o-laurent merged commit f0b5dea into main May 23, 2025
5 checks passed
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.

2 participants