Skip to content

[GSK-1953] Max data size as param #1636

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 24, 2023
Merged

[GSK-1953] Max data size as param #1636

merged 7 commits into from
Nov 24, 2023

Conversation

@luca-rossi
Copy link
Contributor

@luca-rossi luca-rossi commented Nov 24, 2023 •
edited by henchaves
Loading

This PR allow users to set maximum number of samples (max_dataset_size) in loss-based scan detectors.
@linear
Copy link

linear bot commented Nov 24, 2023

GSK-1953 Allow users to set maximum number of samples in loss-based scan detectors

Currently we limit to num_features * num_samples < 10 000 000. Let’s allow users to set a max_dataset_size (or similar) parameter to override this limit if needed.
@luca-rossi luca-rossi requested a review from mattbit November 24, 2023 12:35
mattbit
mattbit reviewed Nov 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
mattbit
mattbit reviewed Nov 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
@luca-rossi luca-rossi marked this pull request as ready for review November 24, 2023 13:45
@luca-rossi luca-rossi requested a review from mattbit November 24, 2023 13:45
mattbit
mattbit requested changes Nov 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@mattbit mattbit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

All good, one small change
giskard/scanner/common/loss_based_detector.py Outdated

_needs_target = True

def __init__(self, max_dataset_size: int = MAX_DATASET_SIZE):
Copy link
Member

@mattbit mattbit Nov 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

inline this and probably divide by ~10?
Copy link
Contributor Author

@luca-rossi luca-rossi Nov 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, also maybe it still makes sense to divide by n_features if the param is not specified?
Copy link
Member

@mattbit mattbit Nov 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yep, you could set Optional[int] = None and calculate the default at runtime if not provided
@mattbit
Copy link
Member

mattbit commented Nov 24, 2023

Broken test!
@luca-rossi luca-rossi requested a review from mattbit November 24, 2023 14:44
mattbit
mattbit reviewed Nov 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@mattbit mattbit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, but please fix conflicts
@mattbit mattbit enabled auto-merge November 24, 2023 16:04
@mattbit mattbit self-requested a review November 24, 2023 16:05
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Nov 24, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 1 Code Smell

100.0% 100.0% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication
@mattbit mattbit merged commit a4ec7d5 into main Nov 24, 2023
@mattbit mattbit deleted the task/GSK-1953-custom-max-data-size branch November 24, 2023 16:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

3 participants

@luca-rossi @mattbit