[BUG] reject non-positive sigma/scale in Normal and Laplace #959#1065
Open
shubhumre777 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
[BUG] reject non-positive sigma/scale in Normal and Laplace #959#1065shubhumre777 wants to merge 1 commit into
shubhumre777 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Reference Issues/PRs
Fixes #959
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
This PR adds input parameter validation to the constructors (
__init__) of both theNormalandLaplacedistributions to enforce strictly positive scale parameters (sigmafor Normal andscalefor Laplace).Previously, passing non-positive values allowed mathematically invalid negative values to propagate to the
_pdfcalculation. The input validation uses a robust vectorized numpy checknp.any(np.asarray(...) <= 0)to seamlessly handle both scalar values and multi-dimensional array structures without crashing.Does your contribution introduce a new dependency? If yes, which one?
No.
What should a reviewer concentrate their feedback on?
The vector/array validation logic implementation using
np.any(np.asarray(...) <= 0)inside the constructors.Did you add any tests for the change?
Yes, added a new automated unit test file:
skpro/distributions/tests/test_parameter_validation.pywhich verifies that both distributions throw a descriptiveValueErroron negative and zero boundary values.Any other comments?
This is my first contribution to skpro , Excited to hear feedback.
PR checklist
For all contributions