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

Write a new documentation page with branch info #1367

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Sep 9, 2020

Conversation

drvinceknight
Copy link
Member

This is related to #1352.

Once this PR is merged we should:

  • Change github default branch to dev
  • Delete master
  • Confirm that read the docs is looking at release

Am I missing anything?

We should also remove the release process information from the wiki
(assuming we're happy with what I've written here).

Finally, once #1360 is done we should make sure we update the docs with
the relevant information.

This is related to #1352.

Once this PR is merged we should:

- Change github default branch to `dev`
- Delete `master`
- Confirm that read the docs is looking at `release`

Am I missing anything?

We should also remove the release process information from the wiki
(assuming we're happy with what I've written here).

Finally, once #1360 is done we should make sure we update the docs with
the relevant information.
This is actually no longer correct since #1288
This build found a particular failing example of
`TestTournament.test_seeding_equality` https://github.com/Axelrod-Python/Axelrod/pull/1368/checks?check_run_id=975415322

Upon closer investigation it looks like that was not due to seeding but
due to the floating point error of some calculations made by the result
set.

I investigated using:

```
import axelrod as axl
import numpy as np

seed = 2
repetitions = 10
rng = axl.RandomGenerator(seed=seed)
players = [axl.Random(rng.random()) for _ in range(8)]
tournament1 = axl.Tournament(
    players=players,
    turns=10,
    repetitions=repetitions,
    seed=seed
)
tournament2 = axl.Tournament(
    players=players,
    turns=10,
    repetitions=repetitions,
    seed=seed
)
for _ in range(4):
    results1 = tournament1.play(processes=2, progress_bar=False)
    results2 = tournament2.play(processes=2, progress_bar=False)
    assert results1.wins == results2.wins
    assert results1.match_lengths == results2.match_lengths
    assert results1.scores == results2.scores
    assert np.allclose(results1.normalised_scores, results2.normalised_scores)
    assert np.allclose(results1.ranking, results2.ranking)
    assert results1.ranked_names == results2.ranked_names
    assert results1.payoffs == results2.payoffs
    assert results1.payoff_matrix == results2.payoff_matrix
    assert np.allclose(results1.payoff_stddevs, results2.payoff_stddevs)
    assert results1.score_diffs == results2.score_diffs
    assert results1.payoff_diffs_means == results2.payoff_diffs_means
    assert results1.cooperation == results2.cooperation
    assert results1.normalised_cooperation == results2.normalised_cooperation
    assert results1.vengeful_cooperation == results2.vengeful_cooperation
    assert results1.cooperating_rating == results2.cooperating_rating
    assert results1.good_partner_matrix == results2.good_partner_matrix
    assert results1.good_partner_rating == results2.good_partner_rating
    assert np.allclose(results1.eigenmoses_rating, results2.eigenmoses_rating)
    assert np.allclose(results1.eigenjesus_rating, results2.eigenjesus_rating)
```

Note I'm using `np.isclose` for some properties.

In this commit:

- I add the specific seed for which the error was found as a hypothesis
  example (`seed=2`).
- Replace the `results1 == results2` check with just a check of some
  properties (from which the others are essentially calculated).
- Added `progress_bar=False`
@drvinceknight
Copy link
Member Author

drvinceknight commented Aug 12, 2020

917eead found a failing example for the reproducible seeding (EDIT: but it's the test so please don't panic like I did! 😆), I fixed that in 3f60d5d (that commit message has more information).

In that commit:

  • I add the specific seed for which the error was found as a hypothesis
    example (seed=2).
  • Replace the results1 == results2 check with just a check of some
    properties (from which the others are essentially calculated).
  • Added progress_bar=False

@marcharper
Copy link
Member

FYI this may cause a problem for PR #1364

@drvinceknight
Copy link
Member Author

FYI this may cause a problem for PR #1364

Yeah. Hopefully easy enough to fix but I'm happy to wait for the right "gap" to get this PR in :)

@Nikoleta-v3 Nikoleta-v3 merged commit 7cbe2d7 into dev Sep 9, 2020
@marcharper marcharper deleted the update-contribution-documentation-for-new-branches branch July 3, 2022 18:03
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