easystats / easystats/performance
error checking model from parsnip object: operator is invalid
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
3 investigators :grey_question::question:
Bug :bug:
- Dominant language
- R
- Stars
- 1.2k
- Forks
- 109
- Avg merge
- 6h 34m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 8
Description
Tried to check_model using a very simple glmnet classification task.
Code from here:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65969913/extract-plain-model-from-tidymodel-object
library(magrittr)
library(tidymodels)
library(performance)
data(two_class_dat)
glm_spec <- logistic_reg() %>%
set_engine("glmnet")
norm_rec <- recipe(Class ~ A + B, data = two_class_dat) %>%
step_normalize(all_predictors())
glm_fit <- workflow() %>%
add_recipe(norm_rec) %>%
add_model(glm_spec) %>%
fit(two_class_dat) %>%
pull_workflow_fit()
performance::check_model(glm_fit)
Error: $ operator is invalid for atomic vectors
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by running the supplied tidymodels and glmnet example, then trace how performance::check_model handles the object returned by pull_workflow_fit(). Identify where the atomic-vector error occurs and add regression coverage for this reproducible classification case; done means check_model no longer raises that error for the example.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- r
- Domain
- machine-learning
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100