This repository has been archived by the owner on May 6, 2024. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
Merged
Wizkit support #78
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a54d28e
Print action meanings. Useful for debugging.
972146d
Merge branch 'master' into vit_dev
fa95522
Add pycharm project configs to .gitignore.
9ce8908
add wizkit support
1b233c1
Make reset arguments call explicit.
1fabb9e
Make NLE.print_action_meanings public.
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ venv.bak/ | |
.spyderproject | ||
.spyproject | ||
|
||
# IDE | ||
.idea/ | ||
|
||
# Rope project settings | ||
.ropeproject | ||
|
||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have something similar when you play via
python nle/scripts/play.py
, but if you find this helpful, why not.Generally we try to use
_
for pseudo-private methods, so this might be better w/o the underscore?The same goes for tests btw -- we are not 100% strict about this, but I'd prefer there to be no access to underscored variables/functions in tests, as this breaks encapsulation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removed the underscore from the method's name.
How do you write unit tests for some internal behaviour of an object without accessing internal fields?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
That's a great question and as I said we're not 100% strict about that. But my idea would be that unit tests should test public behavior, not their private implementation.
More on this idea here: https://testing.googleblog.com/2015/01/testing-on-toilet-prefer-testing-public.html?m=1