markhwhiteii commented 4 years ago

opening to see if it fails checks—it shouldn't, since all examples so far have BIBD with lambda of 1

markhwhiteii commented 4 years ago

it failed because I normalized and then adjusted for co-appearances; this does not lead to rows that all equal to 1 when one item always wins/always loses. so, I flipped the order. it first adjusts for co-appearances (doesn't matter of its a BIBD, since lambda is the same for all), and then normalizes so that everything is equal to one.

codecov-commenter commented 4 years ago

Codecov Report

Merging #36 into master will increase coverage by 1.59%. The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master       #36      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   98.40%   100.00%   +1.59%     
===========================================
  Files          17        17              
  Lines         251       271      +20     
===========================================
+ Hits          247       271      +24     
+ Misses          4         0       -4

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
R/eloscoring.R	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
R/get_M.R	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
R/get_checks.R	`100.00% <100.00%> (+13.33%)`	:arrow_up:
R/prscoring.R	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
R/walkscoring.R	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update b7b457b...9a62b4e. Read the comment docs.

markhwhiteii commented 4 years ago

d224509 should also not fail any tests, because all test data so far have been bibd

markhwhiteii commented 4 years ago

get_checks testing goes way down; need another commit with more testing to get it back up

markhwhiteii commented 4 years ago

509626e should bring codecov back up

markhwhiteii commented 4 years ago

closes #35

markhwhiteii / bwsTools

adjust for pairwise co-occurrences #36

Codecov Report