[FBcode->GH] Removed type annotations from rcnn

[prabhat00155]

These type annotations were causing test failures in Phabricator. Hence, these were removed in D32216673.

cc @datumbox

[facebook-github-bot]

💊 CI failures summary and remediations

As of commit 34e24bf (more details on the Dr. CI page):

---

• 2/2 failures introduced in this PR

---

2 failures not recognized by patterns:

Job	Step	Action
binary_linux_conda_py3.9_cu111	packaging/build_conda.sh	🔁 rerun
binary_libtorchvision_ops_android	Build	🔁 rerun

---

1 job timed out:

• binary_linux_conda_py3.9_cu111

---

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).

Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group.

Click here to manually regenerate this comment.

[NicolasHug]

Stamping

Do you remember what the issue was? Where the new annotations incorrect or is it something else?

[prabhat00155]

Stamping

Do you remember what the issue was? Where the new annotations incorrect or is it something else?

Error details: https://github.com/pytorch/vision/pull/4631/files#r744161323

[prabhat00155]

@NicolasHug Detailed error can be viewed here: https://www.internalfb.com/diff/D32216673?dst_version_fbid=621645568869442, under diff signals.

[oke-aditya]

Just a small doubt @prabhat00155 can we use the Python annotations which are commented ? Or is that too causing failure?

[prabhat00155]

Just a small doubt @prabhat00155 can we use the Python annotations which are commented ? Or is that too causing failure?

The type annotations in arguments in eager_outputs() and forward() was causing some pyre errors in a third-party file.

Unused ignore [0]: The `pyre-ignore` or `pyre-fixme` comment is not suppressing type errors, please remove it. 

Also, the return type was causing a test failure as discussed before.

[github-actions]

Hey @prabhat00155!

You merged this PR, but no labels were added. The list of valid labels is available at https://github.com/pytorch/vision/blob/main/.github/process_commit.py

[datumbox]

@prabhat00155 I don't think this change is considered bc breaking. I would also probably mark is as bug fix because the previous typing broke some use-cases and this PR addresses it.