I think it'd be good if the config checker were to validate the passed params names, and not silently ignore them. Otherwise it's too easy to make a typo (or like in this case #773 use the invalid doc suggestion) and then waste a lot of time hunting for why things don't work (or worse - getting subtly bad results).
You did mention in the past that the validation wasn't done to enable easy experimentation, but as the project is starting to get adopted by the masses it's probably time to make things strict.
Perhaps for experimentation add a new flag validate_config which would be True by default and if disabled it'd not be strict.
Thank you.
I think it'd be good if the config checker were to validate the passed params names, and not silently ignore them. Otherwise it's too easy to make a typo (or like in this case #773 use the invalid doc suggestion) and then waste a lot of time hunting for why things don't work (or worse - getting subtly bad results).
You did mention in the past that the validation wasn't done to enable easy experimentation, but as the project is starting to get adopted by the masses it's probably time to make things strict.
Perhaps for experimentation add a new flag
validate_configwhich would be True by default and if disabled it'd not be strict.Thank you.