I359 programmatically query results #367

fcooper8472 · 2019-04-29T16:21:04Z

See #350.

Current shortcomings are:

Can only handle a single output being requested at a time
Testing is inadequate: can't yet figure out how to mock a working store that includes all the components necessary to test the get_results() method.
- This can be most easily done by using the sample project, but this avenue has been ruled out in favour of fixtures (see Consolidate sample project into consistent set of valid fixtures #304)

…or single sector model, single output and *multiple* model runs

(-->get_results)

…rnal() for outputs with ndims>1

codecov · 2019-04-29T16:33:27Z

Codecov Report

Merging #367 into develop will increase coverage by 0.29%.
The diff coverage is 83.09%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #367      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    70.73%   71.02%   +0.29%     
===========================================
  Files           59       60       +1     
  Lines         5204     5336     +132     
  Branches       618      659      +41     
===========================================
+ Hits          3681     3790     +109     
- Misses        1431     1449      +18     
- Partials        92       97       +5

Flag	Coverage Δ
#javascript	`71.02% <83.09%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️
#python	`78.73% <83.09%> (+0.11%)`	⬆️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/smif/data_layer/file/file_data_store.py	`87.07% <100%> (ø)`	⬆️
src/smif/data_layer/store.py	`90.51% <76.82%> (-4.76%)`	⬇️
src/smif/data_layer/results.py	`91.52% <91.52%> (ø)`
src/smif/data_layer/data_array.py	`86.89% <0%> (+0.68%)`	⬆️

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 a5d2e47...b94bce9. Read the comment docs.

…ilability of quieried output as well as dimensionality Issue #359

willu47 · 2019-05-02T15:53:56Z

I'm happy with the functionality now. @tomalrussell wanted to have a look through the testing options for you @fcooper8472, so over to him.

fcooper8472 · 2019-05-02T16:01:40Z

@tomalrussell wanted to have a look through the testing options for you @fcooper8472, so over to him.

That would be really helpful - I've been struggling to mock a "complete" state that includes the necessary model runs, sector models and results. If we could work out how to provide that in a fixture it would be useful more widely, but would definitely allow us to thoroughly test this.

Include style niggles: - docstring parameter description on next line - prefer raising relevant errors to assertions - avoid abbrev.s in param. names (sec_model_name > model_name)

tomalrussell

This looks good to merge - especially the key Results.read method seems to hit the spot.

If the testing around Results.read and Store.get_results can be fleshed out reasonably straightforwardly, based on the results_with_results fixture, that would be great, otherwise let's not block this PR.

Looking forward to using this in coming weeks! 👍

…sults

fcooper8472 · 2019-05-03T15:34:52Z

I'm in the process of tinkering with the fixtures to improve the test coverage - but happy for you to merge this now and look at further changes down the line if you prefer?

tomalrussell · 2019-05-03T15:47:34Z

I'll pick this up on Tuesday afternoon and aim to cut 1.1 (#369) - a bit of tinkering and coverage would be welcome if you can fit it in before then.

codecov-io · 2019-05-07T11:03:04Z

Codecov Report

Merging #367 into develop will increase coverage by 0.29%.
The diff coverage is 83.09%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #367      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    70.73%   71.02%   +0.29%     
===========================================
  Files           59       60       +1     
  Lines         5204     5336     +132     
  Branches       618      659      +41     
===========================================
+ Hits          3681     3790     +109     
- Misses        1431     1449      +18     
- Partials        92       97       +5

Flag	Coverage Δ
#javascript	`71.02% <83.09%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️
#python	`78.73% <83.09%> (+0.11%)`	⬆️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/smif/data_layer/file/file_data_store.py	`87.07% <100%> (ø)`	⬆️
src/smif/data_layer/store.py	`90.51% <76.82%> (-4.76%)`	⬇️
src/smif/data_layer/results.py	`91.52% <91.52%> (ø)`
src/smif/data_layer/data_array.py	`86.89% <0%> (+0.68%)`	⬆️

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 a5d2e47...b94bce9. Read the comment docs.

Thibault Lestang and others added 16 commits April 17, 2019 15:07

Add draft for Store.get_results_darray method

c957cef

#359 First attempt at data access method

53477fb

Add store.get_results_fixed_output() that returns dict of DataArray f…

3fadb24

…or single sector model, single output and *multiple* model runs

#359 Work towards read-only Results interface

d068681

Merge branch 'results' into i359_programmatically_query_results

642e170

Add store.get_results_fixed_output() for multiple model_runs

e2022a6

Change name of get_results_fixed_output() to read_results()

6dc91d7

Also rework tests to no longer use sample project

d5682dc

Fix conflicting method name read_results for Results API in store.py

d4e0e65

(-->get_results)

#359 Add read() method to Results and add interface tests

4ee685a

Attempt to fix SmifDataMismatchError in Store._get_result_darray_inte…

c575306

…rnal() for outputs with ndims>1

#359 Improve testing of Results()

c29c97a

Fix typo in Store._get_result_darray_internal()

4b886ed

#359 Return a dataframe with cols for model run, timestep and decision

ac88b36

#359 Tidying

0ee60a1

#359 Add test stub and todo for testing

079152d

willu47 requested a review from tomalrussell April 30, 2019 08:41

fcooper8472 and others added 7 commits May 1, 2019 11:47

#359 Add functionality to keep tabs on units

f71b570

#359 Reorder columns model_run -> timestep -> decision

844fb8f

Modify store.get_results to return multiple outputs and check for ava…

92b8a13

…ilability of quieried output as well as dimensionality Issue #359

#359 Update wrt multiple outputs on store class

655785c

#359 Update Results.read() validation

bf6ceba

#359 Tidy Store.get_results()

a14f35b

#359 Remove units from column names

7ef8389

tomalrussell added 2 commits May 3, 2019 12:34

Move store creation to Store.from_dict

6aa5d28

Include style niggles: - docstring parameter description on next line - prefer raising relevant errors to assertions - avoid abbrev.s in param. names (sec_model_name > model_name)

Fix typo in error message

ae917af

Add test fixture for results

ab97a09

#359 Change dict to OrderedDict to ensure ordered Pandas dataframe

0fe05f8

tomalrussell approved these changes May 3, 2019

View reviewed changes

#359 Differentiate between Results instance with or without actual re…

3c8bfbf

…sults

fcooper8472 added 2 commits May 3, 2019 17:06

#359 Add coverage for multiple model runs

db7cf82

#359 Change to OrderedDict for reproducibility between 3.5 and 3.6

b94bce9

fcooper8472 merged commit 7a751da into develop May 7, 2019

fcooper8472 deleted the i359_programmatically_query_results branch May 7, 2019 13:27

This was referenced May 7, 2019

Programmatically query the available model results #359

Closed

Parent issue for results API #350

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

I359 programmatically query results #367

I359 programmatically query results #367

fcooper8472 commented Apr 29, 2019

codecov bot commented Apr 29, 2019 •

edited

Loading

willu47 commented May 2, 2019

fcooper8472 commented May 2, 2019

tomalrussell left a comment

fcooper8472 commented May 3, 2019

tomalrussell commented May 3, 2019

codecov-io commented May 7, 2019 •

edited by codecov bot

Loading

I359 programmatically query results #367

I359 programmatically query results #367

Conversation

fcooper8472 commented Apr 29, 2019

codecov bot commented Apr 29, 2019 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

willu47 commented May 2, 2019

fcooper8472 commented May 2, 2019

tomalrussell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fcooper8472 commented May 3, 2019

tomalrussell commented May 3, 2019

codecov-io commented May 7, 2019 • edited by codecov bot Loading

Codecov Report

codecov bot commented Apr 29, 2019 •

edited

Loading

codecov-io commented May 7, 2019 •

edited by codecov bot

Loading