Support for treatment strategies with interventions at non-consecutiv…

[jmafoster1]

Support for treatment strategies with interventions at non-consecutive timesteps. Timesteps without an explicitly specified intervention are treated as "don't care", so anything can happen.

[github-actions]

🦙 MegaLinter status: ✅ SUCCESS

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Fixed	Errors	Elapsed time
✅ PYTHON	black	36		0	0.96s
✅ PYTHON	pylint	36		0	5.5s

See detailed report in MegaLinter reports

MegaLinter is graciously provided by

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.79518% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 96.97%. Comparing base (ed832da) to head (e6d46cd).
Report is 20 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
causal_testing/estimation/ipcw_estimator.py	98.76%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #292      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.07%   96.97%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files          30       29       -1     
  Lines        1809     1816       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         1756     1761       +5     
- Misses         53       55       +2     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
causal_testing/testing/causal_test_case.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
causal_testing/estimation/ipcw_estimator.py	99.24% <98.76%> (-0.76%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d5f0dad...e6d46cd. Read the comment docs.

[jmafoster1]

@f-allian, is the codecov just failing on this because the codebase has got slightly bigger? It says I have 100% coverage of the patch, so that's all I can think of, but adding in extra code with 100% coverage should be fine right?

[f-allian]

@f-allian, is the codecov just failing on this because the codebase has got slightly bigger? It says I have 100% coverage of the patch, so that's all I can think of, but adding in extra code with 100% coverage should be fine right?

@jmafoster1 Looks like the coverage is failing because you've deleted causal_testing/specification/capabilities.py. Do you know if this was intentional? If so, recommitting it should fix it.

[jmafoster1]

Yes, this was intentional. It is no longer required as the new functionality requires timesteps to be specified explicitly, which is what I wrote capabilities.py to handle implicitly.

[f-allian]

@jmafoster1 Feel free to merge following our meeting today :)

[jmafoster1]

Thanks. I'm just trying to iron out a couple of bugs, so I'll push that up and then merge in

[jmafoster1]

Pretty sure I've fixed all the bugs in this. @f-allian , I've re-requested a review as I've changed quite a lot of stuff. Most of it is quite technical, but please let me know if anything seems odd.

[f-allian]

@jmafoster1 The new changes all look good to me