add ability to specify custom instruction generator function

[nreinicke]

Closes #129 by adding the ability to specify custom control logic as either a InstructionGenerator or an InstructionFunction which is any callable that has the signature Callable[[SimulationState, Environment], Tuple[Instruction, ...]]

@robfitzgerald I'm interested to hear if this satisfies what you had in mind with #129

[robfitzgerald]

thanks nick, this is the idea. i think making these APIs callables vs requiring them to derive a base class is a little more pythonic for people who want to easily add new control logic in hive.

i think there's a complication that may require a little more thought around identifying the unique AnonGenerators, along with another small request to finish the test.

[robfitzgerald]

this test should include an assertion, like, perhaps the custom function creates a fixed set of instructions that can be confirmed at the end

[nreinicke]

yeah that's a good call, I updated the test to make sure the instructions are getting applied and using two different functions to make sure the name property is working

[robfitzgerald]

i think you set up instruction generators to be stored in a Map[str, InstructionGenerator] where the key comes from this name. if that's the case, this design fails if there are more than one anonymous InstructionGenerators added to the system.

two ideas:

• while looping through instruction_generator_from_function below, enumerate the iterable and append the index number when creating the name in the init of AnonGenerator
• make users responsible for providing a name, which is probably the right move, though it means they have to pass along a Tuple[str, Callable[etc]] instead of just the callable

[nreinicke]

aha yes, good catch; how about if we use the incoming function name?

[robfitzgerald]

that's going to be something generated by the interpreter like "lambda$a2354h8-aggahds" or something like that, right? is that helpful for the user? again, if there is a runtime error in their code, it might not be clear which of multiple IGs is the one that's responsible.

[robfitzgerald]

it's a good start though. maybe i should back off and let that through and we worry about fixing it if people have issues later.

[robfitzgerald]

it's a good start though. maybe i should back off and let that through and we worry about fixing it if people have issues later. what do you think?

[nreinicke]

the names actually get propagated as how they're written in python; for example, if I inspect the StepSimulation object in the unit test I get:

[robfitzgerald]

that looks good enough to me, as it should likely correspond to something the user can make sense of. thanks for confirming!

[robfitzgerald]

🐝