DR baseline: just use true features but smaller in test

[scottgigante-immunai]

We had a brainwave that we should just use the full features as we originally wanted to, but we can subset in test.

[scottgigante-immunai]

Passing tests at https://tower.nf/orgs/openproblems-bio/workspaces/openproblems-bio/watch/LYKh1vgvWRGBL

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Base: 95.07% // Head: 95.04% // Decreases project coverage by -0.03% :warning:

Coverage data is based on head (2e9391c) compared to base (4ac6faf). Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

:exclamation: Current head 2e9391c differs from pull request most recent head 486df99. Consider uploading reports for the commit 486df99 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #712 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 95.07% 95.04% -0.04% ========================================== Files 154 154 Lines 4085 4076 -9 Branches 206 207 +1 ========================================== - Hits 3884 3874 -10 Misses 131 131 - Partials 70 71 +1 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | unittests | `95.04% <100.00%> (-0.04%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openproblems-bio#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/openproblems-bio/openproblems/pull/712?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openproblems-bio) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [...tasks/dimensionality\_reduction/methods/baseline.py](https://codecov.io/gh/openproblems-bio/openproblems/pull/712/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openproblems-bio#diff-b3BlbnByb2JsZW1zL3Rhc2tzL2RpbWVuc2lvbmFsaXR5X3JlZHVjdGlvbi9tZXRob2RzL2Jhc2VsaW5lLnB5) | `93.75% <100.00%> (-6.25%)` | :arrow_down: | | [.../\_cell\_cell\_communication/\_common/methods/liana.py](https://codecov.io/gh/openproblems-bio/openproblems/pull/712/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openproblems-bio#diff-b3BlbnByb2JsZW1zL3Rhc2tzL19jZWxsX2NlbGxfY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbi9fY29tbW9uL21ldGhvZHMvbGlhbmEucHk=) | `100.00% <0.00%> (ø)` | | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openproblems-bio). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openproblems-bio)

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[scottgigante-immunai]

Code looks fine to me. You didn't want to keep the PCA as another baseline or was the idea that this should be better in all cases?

This should be better in all cases :)