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

[RLlib] Release learning tests for SlateQ have wrong yaml structure #24429

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 4, 2022

Conversation

sven1977
Copy link
Contributor

@sven1977 sven1977 commented May 3, 2022

  • pass_criteria missing, stop missing.
  • Not setup for tf + torch.

Why are these changes needed?

Related issue number

Checks

  • I've run scripts/format.sh to lint the changes in this PR.
  • 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 :(

@@ -456,22 +456,18 @@ sac-halfcheetahbulletenv-v0:
slateq-interest-evolution-recsim-env:
env: ray.rllib.examples.env.recommender_system_envs_with_recsim.InterestEvolutionRecSimEnv
run: SlateQ
stop:
pass_criteria:
episode_reward_mean: 162.0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This won't run using the rllib cli utility -- is that fine?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, that's ok. These are special release tests configs with the additional pass_criteria key.

@sven1977 sven1977 merged commit b48f631 into ray-project:master May 4, 2022
avnishn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2022
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.

2 participants