[python-package] make some Booster and Dataset attributes private #5723
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jameslamb
requested review from
StrikerRUS,
shiyu1994 and
jmoralez
as code owners
guolinke
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2023
|
Thanks for the review, @guolinke ! I'm very happy we're simplifying the public interface with changes like this in the 4.0.0 release 😊 |
42 tasks
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity since it was closed. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Contributes to #5313.
Proposes prefixing the following attributes with
_, to indicate that user code isn't intended to rely on them.Dataset.need_sliceDataset.params_back_upBooster.networkAnd removing one unused attribute.
Dataset.monotone_constraintsYou can see that it's unused by running the following:
git grep -E '\.monotone_constraints'Notes for Reviewers
See #5313 (comment) for reasons supporting this. That comment mentions a few other properties, but I think making those private will be a bit more controversial and generate more discussion, so I'd like to defer them to a later PR.