-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove not needed validation on privacy_id_extractor #499
Conversation
@@ -420,10 +420,6 @@ def _check_aggregate_params(self, | |||
if check_data_extractors: | |||
_check_data_extractors(data_extractors) | |||
if params.contribution_bounds_already_enforced: | |||
if data_extractors.privacy_id_extractor: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it be possible to log a warning? Clients might have an incorrect configuration in this case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd say that having privacy_id_extractor is a correct configuration, even if no contribution bounding happens, e.g. in principle it would allow to compute PRIVACY_ID_COUNT per partition. So let's keep w/o warnings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for review!
@@ -420,10 +420,6 @@ def _check_aggregate_params(self, | |||
if check_data_extractors: | |||
_check_data_extractors(data_extractors) | |||
if params.contribution_bounds_already_enforced: | |||
if data_extractors.privacy_id_extractor: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd say that having privacy_id_extractor is a correct configuration, even if no contribution bounding happens, e.g. in principle it would allow to compute PRIVACY_ID_COUNT per partition. So let's keep w/o warnings.
When
contribution_bounds_already_enforced = True
then PipelineDP does no contribution bounding. As a privacy id is not needed. The current validation requiresprivacy_id_extractor
to be None, but there is no problem if privacy id extractor is set up. But it's pretty confusing for users whyprivacy_id_extractor
has to beNone
. Let's drop this validation for simplicity