-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 116
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
test_5lm_feature_experiment fails #117
Comments
Hi @Teuling, thank you for sharing the test failure. Since my own test runs don't encounter this issue, it is difficult for me to identify what's happening. Have you identified the series of events that created the FYI @nielsleadholm, @vkakerbeck, maybe you've come across this circumstance before? |
I only followed these instructions: https://thousandbrainsproject.readme.io/docs/getting-started Maybe this gives a clue: https://gist.github.com/Teuling/b71599c6a6cc6874f04135450e643348#file-gistfile1-txt My packages:
|
@tristanls I can't say I have sorry, given the isolated nature of it, some mismatch in package versions seems like a possible culprit, otherwise @vkakerbeck might have come across something similar when implementing these tests? |
I haven't had much time looking into the detailed logs but from the error it looks like an LM is expecting an incoming vote on one object (object_1) but isn't getting one. This could happen if the receiving LM has created an object_1 model but the sending one hasn't. The first reason why this may suddenly happen in this unit test is that the simulator you're using is returning different values than when we run the simulator, and in your setup, this leads to the receiving LM learning an object model that the sender didn't learn. |
I was working through the same "getting started" guide and ran into this same issue. I'm also running on Linux, NixOS to be specific. I'm seeing the same exact stack trace on the Strangely, that one doesn't crash if you run just that test file using As for the KeyError, I know very little about this code base having just started to look at it, but wouldn't it be safer not to assume the |
yes, good point. It is a bit hard for me to test this solution since I am not getting this error on my end, but you could try adding If that fixes it, you could open a PR with the change. I am not sure if adding this line would break the unit test, since the unit test probably expects both LMs to be sensing the same objects. It looks to me like the underlying issue here is that your simulator seems to produce different outputs than when we run it, leading to LM0 learning an object and LM1 not learning it (maybe rendering the object smaller leading to the sensor patch being off the object?). I honestly have no clue why this would be happening on your setup or how to fix it. |
Describe the bug
Ubuntu 24.04.1 LTS.
(the rest of the tests run fine)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: