Skip to content

FIX improve warning message in _ensure_sparse_format #27757

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 6 commits into from
Nov 14, 2023

Conversation

lucyleeow
Copy link
Member

@lucyleeow lucyleeow commented Nov 9, 2023

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

_ensure_sparse_format is used to check X and y and other parameters but the warning says:

Use X.toarray() convert to a dense numpy array."

This updates the warning to "Use '.'toarray()'" because it is possible that it was not X that needs to be converted (and even so, the user has not necessarily named the data X).

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 9, 2023

✔️ Linting Passed

All linting checks passed. Your pull request is in excellent shape! ☀️

Generated for commit: eee4b20. Link to the linter CI: here

Copy link
Member

@glemaitre glemaitre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am fine with this changes. We need to change the test and still have an entry in the changelog as a fix since it will change the error message.

@@ -535,7 +535,7 @@ def _ensure_sparse_format(

if accept_sparse is False:
raise TypeError(
"A sparse matrix was passed, but dense data is required. Use X.toarray() "
"A sparse matrix was passed, but dense data is required. Use '.toarray()' "
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And I assume that it can be a sparse matrix or array.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry I don't follow?

Copy link
Member

@lesteve lesteve Nov 10, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suppose this is about sparse array vs sparse matrix and that you can get an error mentioning "sparse matrix" when you passed a sparse array. More context in #26418.

Maybe use something like "sparse data" or sparse_container.__class__ in the error message?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah thank you, I did not know the difference.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've used 'sparse data' as I think that is enough info but happy to change.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've added input_name, if present, to the error message as sometimes more than one argument will be checked (e.g., X and y) and this can help. Happy to change back though.

cc @glemaitre in case this needs re-review.

@glemaitre glemaitre changed the title Amend warning in _ensure_sparse_format FIX improve warning message in _ensure_sparse_format Nov 9, 2023
@lucyleeow
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks, changes made! @glemaitre

@@ -534,6 +534,10 @@ Changelog
misdetects the CPU architecture.
:pr:`27614` by :user:`Olivier Grisel <ogrisel>`.

- |Fix| Error message in :func:`~utils._ensure_sparse_format` when a sparse matrix was
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's document the public function that is impacted.

Suggested change
- |Fix| Error message in :func:`~utils._ensure_sparse_format` when a sparse matrix was
- |Fix| Error message in :func:`~utils.check_array` when a sparse matrix was

Copy link
Member

@glemaitre glemaitre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM otherwise.

@glemaitre
Copy link
Member

Thanks @lucyleeow

@lucyleeow
Copy link
Member Author

Changes made, thanks!

@lucyleeow lucyleeow added the Waiting for Second Reviewer First reviewer is done, need a second one! label Nov 13, 2023
Copy link
Member

@glemaitre glemaitre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is still good to me. @lesteve do you want to have a new look at it.

@lesteve lesteve merged commit 926671b into scikit-learn:main Nov 14, 2023
@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Nov 14, 2023

Merging, thanks!

@lucyleeow lucyleeow deleted the prf_rm_none branch November 15, 2023 00:55
@lucyleeow
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the reviews!

REDVM pushed a commit to REDVM/scikit-learn that referenced this pull request Nov 16, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
module:utils Waiting for Second Reviewer First reviewer is done, need a second one!
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants