Replies: 1 comment
-
|
@zechigan thanks for the question. Yes there's a few ways to do this, and we also have two issues open related to this #922 & #701 (and also this #1045 so it's clearer what the options are). Let me quickly recap a few ways you could try to get at this:
def raw_regression(...) -> pd.DataFrame:
# code to load
return df
@pipe(
@step(_winsorsized_observations),
@step(_normalized_winsorsized_observations),
)
def regression(raw_regression: pd.DataFrame) -> pd.DataFrame:
return raw_regression
Without knowing more about your context, it's hard to say what would work best for you -- also there's more decorators that could also help (e.g. My suggestion is to watch the youtube video I did and see if that helps you -- if not let's chat / add more here to determine how we can make it better :) References:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello!
Suppose I have a DAG that does the following:
|observations| -> winsorsized_observations -> normalized_winsorsized_observations -> ...Given an external input
observations, the nodewinsorsized_observationswinsorsizes it followed bynormalized_winsorsized_observationsthat performs normalization on top of that.Something I thought could be good to have is to be able to rename some intermediary nodes back to the input name i.e., I rename
normalized_winsorsized_observationsback toobservations, and any child nodes now knowsobservationsno longer refers to the inputobservations:Obviously, this could be achieved by having two DAGs executed separately. But I would like to know whether being able to somehow splice the two DAGs is a good idea, and if it isn't, what Hamilton principles does this go against.
Thank you!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions