-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 428
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
[Question] Complex observation_space Configuration Issue with PettingZoo and Tianshou Integration #1211
Comments
Are you using the current master branch of PettingZoo? If not, can you try that? I think I changed the behaviour for the nested obs case a while back. If it is still failing with that, can you post code for a minimum env that triggers the api error? |
Same issue here. API fails because dict has no dtype. @NeoBerekov did ignoring that particular test work for you? |
Seems like it's a reasonable fix to just remove that warning. A PR on that would be very helpful and appreciated. :) |
I'm not sure what is going on when tianshou running its training proc, but it seems that nothing goes wrong when I just ignore that test. |
Did you try this with the current master version from git? If so, do you still get the error? |
@dm-ackerman I have encountered the same issue and it's from the latest master. |
Question
I am integrating a complex
observation_space
within PettingZoo, adhering to Tianshou framework requirements that necessitate nesting dictionaries withinobservation
to pass observations into a PyTorch model. My environment’sobservation_space
configuration is as follows:During the
api_test
in PettingZoo, I encountered the following errors:The specific failing test code snippet is:
Given the necessity to nest dictionaries for compatibility with Tianshou, which expects PyTorch model inputs, it appears there is a misalignment with PettingZoo’s testing expectations, which presume NumPy array compatibility. How can I reconcile these requirements? Is this an oversight in the
api_test
, or should adjustments be made to accommodate such nested dictionary structures? Any guidance on resolving this configuration mismatch would be highly appreciated.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: