Fix BYOL moving average update

[wjn0]

No longer exclude biases from the moving average update in BYOL. See discussion on #440

What does this PR do?

Fixes the BYOL moving average callback to update all parameters, no longer excluding biases, to better match the original paper

Fixes #440

Before submitting

• Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue? (no need for typos and docs improvements)
• Did you read the contributor guideline, Pull Request section?
• Did you make sure your PR does only one thing, instead of bundling different changes together?
• Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes?
• Did you write any new necessary tests? [not needed for typos/docs]
• Did you verify new and existing tests pass locally with your changes?
• If you made a notable change (that affects users), did you update the CHANGELOG?

PR review

• Is this pull request ready for review? (if not, please submit in draft mode)

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed.
If we didn't discuss your PR in Github issues there's a high chance it will not be merged.

Did you have fun?

Make sure you had fun coding 🙃

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #574 (592d28f) into master (1bec122) will decrease coverage by 51.79%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #574       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   78.03%   26.23%   -51.80%     
===========================================
  Files         115      115               
  Lines        6701     6674       -27     
===========================================
- Hits         5229     1751     -3478     
- Misses       1472     4923     +3451     

Flag	Coverage Δ
cpu	26.23% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
pytest	26.23% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
unittests	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pl_bolts/callbacks/byol_updates.py	45.45% <0.00%> (-54.55%)	⬇️
pl_bolts/models/rl/__init__.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
pl_bolts/models/rl/common/agents.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
pl_bolts/models/rl/dueling_dqn_model.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
pl_bolts/models/rl/double_dqn_model.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-95.66%)	⬇️
...l_bolts/models/rl/vanilla_policy_gradient_model.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-95.50%)	⬇️
pl_bolts/models/rl/common/networks.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-89.25%)	⬇️
pl_bolts/models/rl/reinforce_model.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-88.62%)	⬇️
pl_bolts/models/rl/per_dqn_model.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-86.67%)	⬇️
pl_bolts/models/rl/common/gym_wrappers.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-85.50%)	⬇️
... and 64 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1bec122...ed4d252. Read the comment docs.

[wjn0]

pinging @annikabrundyn for review :)

[annikabrundyn]

looks good to me. @ananyahjha93 mind taking a look too? this makes sense for using either resnet50 or vgg16 as backbone but if other custom encoders are provided do we want to make it specific for named parameters containing 'weight' or 'bias'?