Adding defaults for Label and GroupId to Ranking Evaluator

[rogancarr]

This PR adds default column names for Label and GroupId for the Ranking Evaluator, in line with all other Evaluators.

Fixes #2633

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2684 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2684      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   71.54%   71.54%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         800      800              
  Lines      141827   141827              
  Branches    16119    16119              
==========================================
- Hits       101472   101470       -2     
- Misses      35913    35915       +2     
  Partials     4442     4442

Flag	Coverage Δ
#Debug	71.54% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
#production	67.85% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
#test	85.7% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Microsoft.ML.Data/TrainCatalog.cs	90.08% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/Microsoft.ML.Maml/MAML.cs	24.75% <0%> (-1.46%)	⬇️
...soft.ML.TestFramework/DataPipe/TestDataPipeBase.cs	73.76% <0%> (-0.33%)	⬇️
...soft.ML.Data/DataLoadSave/Text/TextLoaderCursor.cs	83.06% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
src/Microsoft.ML.Data/Training/TrainerUtils.cs	71.57% <0%> (+0.79%)	⬆️

[danmoseley]

@safern do you know what the magic is to make all the legs show up above in github, like they do now in CoreFX, rather than just one meta leg "MachineLearning-CI"

[safern]

@safern do you know what the magic is to make all the legs show up above in github, like they do now in CoreFX, rather than just one meta leg "MachineLearning-CI"

We need to change the connection settings in the build definition itself. That will also enable comment triggers for this repo. @eerhardt @shauheen I can take care of that, I think using the new connection setting is worth it as it also gets a lot of fixes from the azure devops CI team. However, it adds an extra step to get to the builds. When you click on details, it sends you to the checks tab in GH.

[eerhardt]

I'm not sure if we need anything different than what we have today... I feel I'm productive in the current environment.

But if others feel it is valuable to have something different, I won't object unless I think that something different is worse than what we have today.

[safern]

But if others feel it is valuable to have something different, I won't object unless I think that something different is worse than what we have today.

To just feel the difference you can go into a corefx PR and look at the builds, click on one of them and try to navigate to it, etc.

[eerhardt]

Yea, that experience is worse IMO.

[safern]

Yea, that experience is worse IMO.

Yeah, but I think is getting cool feature, like retrying a single job, rather than the whole pipeline, and comment triggers, optional builds triggered by comments, etc. Stuff corefx did require.

[Ivanidzo4ka]

revoking review

[Ivanidzo4ka]