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

Add reward_only to runners #100

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

Northbadge
Copy link
Contributor

@Northbadge Northbadge commented Aug 11, 2022

  • Will be useful for validation runner and generate default trace
  • Adds a todo w.r.t. CompilationResult having odd asserts/redundant attributes

Part of #96

(was #98 before I messed up my branch reset and GitHub took the opportunity to close it)

- Will be useful for validation runner and generate default trace
- Allows None values in sequence_examples
@Northbadge Northbadge force-pushed the validation-runner-peel branch from 096d1fb to 468adc3 Compare August 11, 2022 22:55
@Northbadge Northbadge force-pushed the validation-runner-peel branch from e7dff71 to 113c71e Compare August 12, 2022 15:22
@mtrofin
Copy link
Collaborator

mtrofin commented Aug 12, 2022

lgtm, but rename the patch because there's no "raw_" anywhere anymore

@Northbadge Northbadge changed the title Add raw_reward_only to runners Add reward_only to runners Aug 12, 2022
def get_rewards(result: Dict) -> List[float]:
return [v[1] for v in result.values()]

def collect_results(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i think it is over-engineering to refactor the collect_data function with the collect_results function, the options in the collect_results here are too complicated and the return type is also confusing, the name of collect_results and collect_data is also confusing.

I recommend to just write a function for your evaluation purpose, in this way the function args and return types will be much clearer

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that's sounds reasonable. I'll just make _compile_fn public scoped, that's essentially all I need anyway

@Northbadge Northbadge closed this Aug 16, 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.

3 participants