-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 179
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
Sklearn 1.6 support #2221
Sklearn 1.6 support #2221
Conversation
/intelci: run |
4 similar comments
/intelci: run |
/intelci: run |
/intelci: run |
/intelci: run |
/intelci: run |
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.
Overall pretty good. @Alexsandruss are we going to do anything to control the sklearn version in conda-recipe to prevent CI failures, or was that bug a feature?
/intelci: run |
Merge on green CI, we will need to also make tickets to upgrade private CI and update the public README.md about support. |
04a9981
to
12874f6
Compare
/intelci: run |
I guess this should also be updated: https://github.com/uxlfoundation/scikit-learn-intelex/blob/main/doc/sources/quick-start.rst?plain=1#L377-L382 |
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. Is the SCIPY_ARRAY_API something we should eventually be supporting internally? Would a follow-up ticket make sense here?
I have added a ticket for private CI |
Separate PR with update of supported versions and others docs would be better. |
* Apply scipy array API support * Deselect tests for unsupported skl1.6 features * Add sklearn 1.6 to CI matrix * Fix pairwise_distances dispatching * Fix forbidden usage of sklearn_check_version * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Add SCIPY_ARRAY_API to test_estimators * Update input validation in AdaBoost and GBT d4p estimators * Pin sklearn 1.5 for py3.9 * Fix knn bf regr spmd example * Update python-sklearn CI matrix * Apply comments for AdaBoost and GBT estimators * Add sklearn 1.6 to README badge * Linting * Update metric in knn bf regr spmd example * Update CI matrix
* Apply scipy array API support * Deselect tests for unsupported skl1.6 features * Add sklearn 1.6 to CI matrix * Fix pairwise_distances dispatching * Fix forbidden usage of sklearn_check_version * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Add SCIPY_ARRAY_API to test_estimators * Update input validation in AdaBoost and GBT d4p estimators * Pin sklearn 1.5 for py3.9 * Fix knn bf regr spmd example * Update python-sklearn CI matrix * Apply comments for AdaBoost and GBT estimators * Add sklearn 1.6 to README badge * Linting * Update metric in knn bf regr spmd example * Update CI matrix
* Apply scipy array API support * Deselect tests for unsupported skl1.6 features * Add sklearn 1.6 to CI matrix * Fix pairwise_distances dispatching * Fix forbidden usage of sklearn_check_version * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Fix for pairwise_distances params validation * Add SCIPY_ARRAY_API to test_estimators * Update input validation in AdaBoost and GBT d4p estimators * Pin sklearn 1.5 for py3.9 * Fix knn bf regr spmd example * Update python-sklearn CI matrix * Apply comments for AdaBoost and GBT estimators * Add sklearn 1.6 to README badge * Linting * Update metric in knn bf regr spmd example * Update CI matrix
Description
Changes:
SCIPY_ARRAY_API
to1
which is required for sklearn>=1.6 ifarray-api-compat
is installed in:pairwise_distances
PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed.
This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.
You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way.
For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).
Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:
PR completeness and readability
Testing
Performance
N/A