Add to documentation feature comparison

[wd60622]

Description

The current MMM features were outdated and add some additional rows for o

Still think we should discuss if this should be included at all as it might be hard to maintain

Related Issue

• Closes Add budget optimizer as feature in docs #538
• Related to #

Checklist

• Checked that the pre-commit linting/style checks pass
• Included tests that prove the fix is effective or that the new feature works
• Added necessary documentation (docstrings and/or example notebooks)
• If you are a pro: each commit corresponds to a relevant logical change

Modules affected

• MMM
• CLV

Type of change

• New feature / enhancement
• Bug fix
• Documentation
• Maintenance
• Other (please specify):

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pymc-marketing--550.org.readthedocs.build/en/550/

[wd60622]

New table:
https://pymc-marketing--550.org.readthedocs.build/en/550/guide/mmm/comparison.html

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.36%. Comparing base (9480869) to head (192cf7a).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #550   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.36%   91.36%           
=======================================
  Files          21       21           
  Lines        2073     2073           
=======================================
  Hits         1894     1894           
  Misses        179      179           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[juanitorduz]

LGTM 👍

[juanitorduz]

Actually, Recast does have time-varying coefficients (they have said so a couple of times). Hence I will mark it as well instead of “?”

[juanitorduz]

I would also add a “is unit-tested” 😂 as Robyn does not have a single test. Red flag 🚩

[wd60622]

I would also add a “is unit-tested” 😂 as Robyn does not have a single test. Red flag 🚩

Sounds good. As for the others, do you know the status?

[juanitorduz]

All tested except Recast which is not public, so maybe “?”

[cetagostini]

Hey @juanitorduz are you sure about the TVP? I understand based on what they mentioned here, they have it. https://mmm-hub.slack.com/archives/C05RDDE1GUB/p1708474546559629?thread_ts=1707851321.022429&cid=C05RDDE1GUB

[juanitorduz]

Yes! I agree! This is what I meant above. They do have time-varying coefficients in some flavour. My last comment was about unit-tests :)

[ulfaslak]

Pretty sure they do. Was in a sales call with them some months ago and the guy made it very clear that they had TVP.

[wd60622]

Here is the updated table

[juanitorduz]

Looks great!

[juanitorduz]

@wd60622 ready to merge this one ?

[wd60622]

@wd60622 ready to merge this one ?

Ready whenever you are!

[juanitorduz]

Done! Thanks @wd60622 !

[ricardoV94]

@juanitorduz This PR should probably have been squashed merged, no point in having 6 dirty commits in the git history

[juanitorduz]

Oh! You are right! I'm usually very careful with this! I'm sorry 🙈. Can we ever and maybe merge again?

[ricardoV94]

Better to let it stay as is. I was just flagging it in case it wasn't a one time slip. I also do it now and then

[juanitorduz]

Ok! Thanks for the remainder anyway 💪