Skip to content

Conversation

@AKKI0511
Copy link
Owner

Summary

  • add per-symbol test-window coverage metadata and persist JSON/CSV reports during training and backtesting
  • surface coverage summaries in CLI commands without altering existing result payloads
  • expand time-aware split tests to verify coverage scenarios and adjust pipeline validation expectations

Testing

  • make format
  • make lint
  • make test
  • poetry run pre-commit run --all-files

Codex Task

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment on lines 388 to 391
return results, {
"path": coverage_path.as_posix(),
"fallback_symbols": fallback_symbols,
}

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P1 Badge Preserve run_pipeline return type

run_pipeline now returns a tuple (results, coverage_info) (lines 388-391) instead of the documented results dict, so any existing programmatic caller treating the return as a mapping—for example run_pipeline(...).keys() or results["AAPL"] as shown in the docstring—will now receive a tuple and hit type errors. The commit summary also claims to avoid altering result payloads; adding coverage metadata should be done in a backward-compatible way or it breaks current consumers.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@AKKI0511 AKKI0511 merged commit d110000 into main Dec 31, 2025
1 check passed
@AKKI0511 AKKI0511 deleted the analyze-quanttradeai-for-end-to-end-feature branch December 31, 2025 01:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants