Skip to content
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

[FIX] owkmeans: fix initialization choice #3090

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 28, 2018
Merged

Conversation

markotoplak
Copy link
Member

Issue

Initialization (random or k-means++) was wrongly passed from widget to the library.

Includes
  • Code changes
  • Tests
  • Documentation

@markotoplak markotoplak changed the title owkmeans: fix initialization choice [FIX] owkmeans: fix initialization choice Jun 26, 2018
@lanzagar
Copy link
Contributor

Nice catch. While you are fixing this, could you improve this one step further and remove the constants in the middle of the code?
I think something like changing INIT_METHODS to a dict or tuple of tuples with both our strings and scikit parameters would be much clearer and more future-proof.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jun 28, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #3090 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3090      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.42%   82.43%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         335      335              
  Lines       58037    58048      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        47838    47849      +11     
  Misses      10199    10199

@markotoplak
Copy link
Member Author

@lanzagar, thank you, I did as you suggested.

@lanzagar lanzagar merged commit 03b66c9 into master Jun 28, 2018
@markotoplak markotoplak deleted the fix-owkmeans-init branch June 28, 2018 14:49
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.

3 participants