Skip to content

Validation dd adjustments#98

Open
jurjen93 wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
validation_dd_adjustments
Open

Validation dd adjustments#98
jurjen93 wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
validation_dd_adjustments

Conversation

@jurjen93
Copy link
Collaborator

  • Bug fix for DD validation
  • Make DD validation less strict
  • Align DD validation with DI validation (no different modes)

@jurjen93 jurjen93 requested a review from tikk3r February 20, 2026 10:07
Copy link
Member

@tikk3r tikk3r left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice simplification. Indeed since the DI and DD cases differ by 0.05 in amplitude score I can believe it makes sense to just remove that alltogether.

Comment on lines +81 to +83
if args.error_on_bad_solutions and len(validation_csv[(validation_csv['accept_image']) & (~validation_csv['accept_solutions'])])>0:
exit("ERROR: Following directions should be inspected: \n"
f"{'\n'.join(list(validation_csv[(validation_csv['accept_image']) & ~(validation_csv['accept_solutions'])].source_id))}")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The level of nested statements is maybe a bit hard to read. I would recommend extracting the condition (validation_csv['accept_image']) & (~validation_csv['accept_solutions']) into a variable, for example, as it is used twice.

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.

2 participants