Round digits in print_tree

[rikhuijzer]

Before (dev branch)

Feature 3, Threshold -28.166052806422238
L-> Feature 2, Threshold -161.04351901384842
    L-> 5 : 842/3650
    R-> 7 : 2493/10555
R-> Feature 7, Threshold 108.1408338577021
    L-> 2 : 2434/15287
    R-> 8 : 1227/3508

After (this PR)

Feature 3, Threshold -28.16
L-> Feature 2, Threshold -161.04
    L-> 5 : 842/3650
    R-> 7 : 2493/10555
R-> Feature 7, Threshold 108.14
    L-> 2 : 2434/15287
    R-> 8 : 1227/3508

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 65.00000% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.18%. Comparing base (63cb26a) to head (3ba1651).
⚠️ Report is 96 commits behind head on dev.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/scikitlearnAPI.jl	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
src/DecisionTree.jl	81.25%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #173      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.51%   89.18%   -0.33%     
==========================================
  Files          10       10              
  Lines         992      999       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits          888      891       +3     
- Misses        104      108       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ablaom]

This totally makes sense. My only suggestion would be to use sigdigits instead of digits in round (and name of kwarg) because features can come with very different scales

[rikhuijzer]

This totally makes sense. My only suggestion would be to use sigdigits instead of digits in round (and name of kwarg) because features can come with very different scales

I never knew of the existence of sigdigits. Thanks; I've updated it

[ablaom]

Please rebase your PR to address the conflicts. Part of these will be because I modified the print_tree doc-string before merging #172, which I did to improve the string further and resolve a separate conflict.

[rikhuijzer]

Don't merge yet. I should add a test first; also for #172

[rikhuijzer]

I've added a test in 3ba1651 and added a first argument io::IO to the print_tree signature. I figured that it would probably be best to implement that at some point anyway because it is a Julia convention, so I thought why not now.

If that feature is not acceptable, we can revert 3ba1651 and merge that. The tests do not add super much unfortunately. It's hard to test the text.

[ablaom]

Perfect, thanks!