Review of Existing Code

@araffin has done a great job creating this version of the library but has done it mostly solo, so much of the code has never been reviewed.

I suggest the other maintainers each take responsibility for reviewing a portion of the code. Rather than doing a traditional code review, since it’s already committed I suggest we just make a PR with any changes we think should take place, or raise an issue for non-trivial proposals.

I think the priority is code that is used in multiple algorithms and/or defines the public API and which is new. This includes:

• common/base_class.py
• common/distributions.py
• common/policies.py
• common/type_aliases.py

Next would be the individual algorithms:

• A2C
• PPO
• SAC
• TD3

Also new parts of the documentation could use re-reading/confirming:

• Documentation

If this sounds like a good idea to others, then perhaps we can each claim a few entries on the above list and then start a PR for it? Also feel free to edit the post to break it up differently or to add files I’ve missed.

[araffin]

@Miffyli nice =) (apparently, we can add Windows and mac os thanks to github ci (to be tested)) i think some os.path.join are missing, no?

i will ping @hill-a privately 😉 (he needs some motivation but he can do things and his input is usually valuable) maybe an additional “auto-review”: i did not use “_” prefix for all private attributes.

[araffin]

As the TODO-list for v1.0 is almost complete, we should finish the code review. @hill-a do you have time to review the off-policy algorithms (SAC/TD3)? Otherwise, does anyone else can do it? (maybe @PartiallyTyped ?)

Regarding the documentation, i think it should be ok now? (see #166 )