Rasa: RulePolicy Todos after Rasa Open Source 2.0 alpha

[wochinge]

• [x] Refactor RulePolicy module -> Vova (in progress)
• [x] Refactor the hack for the featurization of the deactivated form -> Vova (part of e2e PR)
• [x] [rename Form event to Loop](https://github.com/RasaHQ/rasa/issues/6409)
• [x] Decide whether forms and loops can use the the same Form / Loop event or if they should use different one (one event is fine)
• [x] decide whether to add field active_loop to tracker dict and to deprecate active_form
• [x] [make it possible in the FormAction to use a custom action to ask for the next requested slot](https://github.com/RasaHQ/rasa/issues/6185)
• [ ] Check how to represent confidence in Fallback classifier
• [x] [Documentation](https://github.com/RasaHQ/rasa/issues/6184) -> Tobi
• [x] Update warnings / changelog to include link to rules documentation
• [x] [make it easier to validate extracted slots in the SDK](https://github.com/RasaHQ/rasa-sdk/issues/238)

[Ghostvv]

For documentation:

• describe how to use custom required_slots flow. Validate action can return which next slot is requested and also can return SlotSet(REQUESTED_SLOT, None) indicating that a form should be deactivated
• mention that external events that trigger smth should be defined as rule snippets

[wochinge]

@Ghostvv What's the state of the refactoring? Did you do that as part of the negative rules branch? What about the other open todos?

[wochinge]

ah, you probably had a couple of stories?

[Ghostvv]

started the final refactor today, I plan to finish it tomorrow, it'll have to be part of e2e PR

[wochinge]

• Should we rename the form event internally? It's already renamed in the YAML data (active_loop) -> I think we're fine for now
• Do we need separate loop / form event -> I think no.
• Refactor the hack for the featurization of the deactivated form - did you do you that @Ghostvv ?
• Check how to represent confidence in Fallback classifier - What would a different representation achieve @Ghostvv ?

[Ghostvv]

Should we rename the form event internally?

I think we should

[Ghostvv]

Refactor the hack for the featurization of the deactivated form

yes it is part of e2e PR

[Ghostvv]

Check how to represent confidence in Fallback classifier - What would a different representation achieve

it should mimic the fact how confident we are that it is indeed fallback

[m-vdb]

@wochinge do we want any of this to go into 2.0.0a2, this Friday?

[wochinge]

There is no user facing change in there so we don't need it for the second alpha

[wochinge]

Tobi: Should we rename the form event internally?

Vova: I think we should

Ok. That will break Rasa X compatibility (if we rename the type part in it as well) 🤔

@Ghostvv
How about Do we need separate loop / form events ? I think there is currently no need for that.

it should mimic the fact how confident we are that it is indeed fallback

Ok, but it's not urgent at all, is it? We can ship that as an improvement even after the Rasa Open Source 2.0 release.

[Ghostvv]

How about Do we need separate loop / form events ? I think there is currently no need for that.

no, I think we need only loop event, how complicated is it to change in rasa x? we're preparing special version for 2.0 anyhow, right?

nlu fallback is not urgent

[wochinge]

Closing this as it's done

[wochinge]

nlu fallback is not urgent

i didn't create an issue for it now - I think we should do so when we actually have the need for it.

[Ghostvv]

we actually have the need for it.

what do you mean????
We actually need it now, but due to that fact that we don't have time for it, it's not urgent

[Ghostvv]

I'll create an issue for it

[Ghostvv]

https://github.com/RasaHQ/rasa/issues/6685