Skip to content
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

[Doc] Correcting documentation with respect to postprocess_trajectory #19672

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2021
Merged

Conversation

renos
Copy link
Contributor

@renos renos commented Oct 24, 2021

Why are these changes needed?

postprocess_trajectory is referred to incorrectly in the rllib-environments documentation. When defining a custom policy, a user never directly modifies Policy.postprocess_trajectory, they define postprocess_fn, which is in turn called by postprocess_trajectory.

Also, in rllib-algorithms I renamed postprocess_trajectory() to Exploration.postprocess_trajectory() to emphasize that this method is part of the Exploration class and not the Policy method, which should not be modified.

Related issue number

Checks

  • I've run scripts/format.sh to lint the changes in this PR.
  • [ yes] I've included any doc changes needed for https://docs.ray.io/en/master/.
  • I've made sure the tests are passing. Note that there might be a few flaky tests, see the recent failures at https://flakey-tests.ray.io/
  • Testing Strategy
    • Unit tests
    • Release tests
    • This PR is not tested :(

postprocess_trajectory is referred to incorrectly in the rllib-environments documentation. When defining a custom policy, a user never directly modifies Policy.postprocess_trajectory, they define postprocess_fn, which is in turn called by postprocess_trajectory.
@gjoliver gjoliver self-requested a review October 24, 2021 09:11
@sven1977 sven1977 merged commit 41dd037 into ray-project:master Oct 25, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants