test: verify datastore is omitted from checkpoint hparams (#148)

[Jayant-kernel]

Describe your changes

This PR adds a minimal regression test to verify that the datastore object is correctly excluded from the pickled PyTorch Lightning checkpoint hyperparameters.

The save_hyperparameters(ignore=["datastore"]) call was already previously implemented inside ARModel and successfully propagates to all model subclasses via super().__init__(). This test simply locks in that behavior by saving a checkpoint to disk and asserting the dictionary keys, ensuring no future refactors accidentally bypass it.

• Instantiates a minimal dummy graph and GraphLAM model.
• Mimics Lightning's standard trainer.save_checkpoint.
• Asserts that "datastore" is absent from the saved checkpoint["hyper_parameters"] dictionary.

Issue Link

Closes #148

Type of change

• 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
• ✨ New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• 📖 Documentation (Addition or improvements to documentation)

Checklist before requesting a review

• My branch is up-to-date with the target branch
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• For any new/modified functions/classes I have added docstrings that clearly describe its purpose, expected inputs and returned values
• I have placed in-line comments to clarify the intent of any hard-to-understand passages of my code
• I have updated the README to cover introduced code changes (N/A)
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have given the PR a name that clearly describes the change, written in imperative form.
• I have requested a reviewer and an assignee

Checklist for reviewers

Each PR comes with its own improvements and flaws. The reviewer should check the following:

• the code is readable
• the code is well tested
• the code is documented (including return types and parameters)
• the code is easy to maintain

Author checklist after completed review

• I have added a line to the CHANGELOG describing this change, in a section
  reflecting type of change (add section where missing):
  • added: when you have added new functionality
  • changed: when default behaviour of the code has been changed
  • fixes: when your contribution fixes a bug
  • maintenance: when your contribution is relates to repo maintenance, e.g. CI/CD or documentation

Checklist for assignee

• PR is up to date with the base branch
• the tests pass
• (if the PR is not just maintenance/bugfix) the PR is assigned to the next milestone. If it is not, propose it for a future milestone.
• author has added an entry to the changelog (and designated the change as added, changed, fixed or maintenance)

[Jayant-kernel]

@joeloskarsson
Please review the change when you are free

[leifdenby]

@Jayant-kernel would you be able to use the default PR template instead please? I helps with the review process to make sure we have checked everything :) Once you've done that one of us will give your work a review.

Thank you for you contribution!

[Jayant-kernel]

@leifdenby
I have changed the template as required.

thanks

[Jayant-kernel]

@joeloskarsson @leifdenby @sadamov
I pushed a small follow-up commit (5ee8a6c) to apply pre-commit formatting in tests/test_checkpoint.py .
Lint is now passing.
Could you please review when you have time?

[huan2088]

Hello! I'm new to the repository, and am looking for ways to contribute. I was wondering if I can be assigned this issue? Thank you!

[sadamov]

Thanks @Jayant-kernel, sorry for the long wait! Rewrote the test for the post-#208 architecture (the original used GraphLAM(args=..., config=..., datastore=...) as a top-level model, which doesn't exist anymore). Renamed to test_saved_checkpoint_excludes_datastore_and_forecaster to honour @joeloskarsson's "more descriptive name" ask, and tightened the assertion to cover the now-additional forecaster field that's also in the ignore list. Merging after CI is green.