Remove Nothing from RolloutEstimator parameters

[johannes-fischer]

JuliaPOMDP/POMDPs.jl#441 broke MCTS.RolloutEstimator default parameters or if nothing is selected for eps or max_depth. To align MCTS.jl with JuliaPOMDP/POMDPs.jl#441, nothing should also not be allowed in MCTS.RolloutEstimator.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.09 🎉

Comparison is base (dd3531b) 86.62% compared to head (ed88999) 86.72%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #103      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.62%   86.72%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          10       11       +1     
  Lines         486      482       -4     
==========================================
- Hits          421      418       -3     
+ Misses         65       64       -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/domain_knowledge.jl	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[BoZenKhaa]

Thanks for opening this; I made the change you are reverting with this PR; sorry it caused you issues. The problem with allowing nothing was that it was causing dynamic dispatch in the inner loop of MCTS; that's why I removed it, and reintroducing it back would cause the same issue again.

Please explain in more detail what this change broke with your use case. There may be another way to do this.

To align MCTS.jl with JuliaPOMDP/POMDPs.jl#441, nothing should also not be allowed in MCTS.RolloutEstimator.

What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

[johannes-fischer]

This PR is not reintroducing nothing. It is removing nothing from MCTS.RolloutEstimator, too (your PR was in POMDPTools.jl). The goal is to make MCTS.RolloutEstimator work with your changes in RolloutSimulator.

[zsunberg]

Thanks @johannes-fischer Looks great!

[zsunberg]

@johannes-fischer should we tag a new version now?

[johannes-fischer]

I think at least a new version should be tagged before a new version of POMDPTools is tagged (POMDPTools v0.1.3 does not contain JuliaPOMDP/POMDPs.jl#441 yet, so currently the tagged versions still work just fine together). But might as well do it now before it is forgotten.