Skip to content

Conversation

@smurching
Copy link
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

In RandomForest.run(), added instrumentation for the number of node groups, along with the min, max, and average number of nodes per group.

Also fixed a typo in BaggedPoint.scala documentation.

How was this patch tested?

Tested by running RandomForestClassifierSuite, checking the test output manually to make sure instrumentation information was present and reasonable.

@mengxr
Copy link
Contributor

mengxr commented Jun 24, 2016

ok to test

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jun 24, 2016

Test build #61144 has finished for PR 13881 at commit bd7d24d.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

no groups of nodes are procesed; updated log statements to reflect this
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jun 24, 2016

Test build #61150 has finished for PR 13881 at commit f5a6893.

  • This patch fails Scala style tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jun 24, 2016

Test build #61151 has finished for PR 13881 at commit 7fb031e.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@smurching
Copy link
Contributor Author

Does it make sense to only perform instrumentation-related computations (i.e. updating the max/min nodes per group) if the instrumentation argument to RandomForest.run (instr) is not None? This isn't checked for in the current implementation.

@jkbradley
Copy link
Member

Sorry for the long delay! Whenever you get a chance to update this, it'd be nice to log this info via the Instrumentation class, rather than logInfo.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Hi @smurching, is this still active?

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 5d2750a May 18, 2017
zifeif2 pushed a commit to zifeif2/spark that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2025
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR proposes to close PRs ...

  - inactive to the review comments more than a month
  - WIP and inactive more than a month
  - with Jenkins build failure but inactive more than a month
  - suggested to be closed and no comment against that
  - obviously looking inappropriate (e.g., Branch 0.5)

To make sure, I left a comment for each PR about a week ago and I could not have a response back from the author in these PRs below:

Closes apache#11129
Closes apache#12085
Closes apache#12162
Closes apache#12419
Closes apache#12420
Closes apache#12491
Closes apache#13762
Closes apache#13837
Closes apache#13851
Closes apache#13881
Closes apache#13891
Closes apache#13959
Closes apache#14091
Closes apache#14481
Closes apache#14547
Closes apache#14557
Closes apache#14686
Closes apache#15594
Closes apache#15652
Closes apache#15850
Closes apache#15914
Closes apache#15918
Closes apache#16285
Closes apache#16389
Closes apache#16652
Closes apache#16743
Closes apache#16893
Closes apache#16975
Closes apache#17001
Closes apache#17088
Closes apache#17119
Closes apache#17272
Closes apache#17971

Added:
Closes apache#17778
Closes apache#17303
Closes apache#17872

## How was this patch tested?

N/A

Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]>

Closes apache#18017 from HyukjinKwon/close-inactive-prs.
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.

6 participants