[python-package] remove support for passing 'feature_name' and 'categorical_feature' through train() and cv() #6706
Conversation
This file contains 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
…orical_feature' through train() and cv()
jameslamb
requested review from
guolinke,
shiyu1994,
jmoralez,
borchero and
StrikerRUS
as code owners
StrikerRUS
changed the title
StrikerRUS
approved these changes
Oct 31, 2024
39 tasks
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Contributes to #6435
Removes the following keyword arguments from
train()andcv()in the Python package:categorical_featurefeature_nameNotes for Reviewers
Benefits of these changes
Simplifies the project's public API, to avoid confusion like https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78383840/in-lightgbm-why-do-the-train-and-the-cv-apis-accept-categorical-feature-argument.
Why now?
Deprecation warnings about these changes have been in
lightgbmsince v4.4.0 (June 2024). I expect it will be at least another month until another release of LightGBM is published, so by then it will have been multiple releases and close to 6 months. I think that's long enough.Why only Python?
The corresponding R package changes are a bit more extensive and will generate a bit more discussion, I think. Proposing separating them to make reviewing easier and to allow one set of changes to be merged without blocking the other set.