Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Survey manager pddl problems #110

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Survey manager pddl problems #110

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Abster101
Copy link
Contributor

Bckempa and others added 2 commits December 12, 2023 14:13
@Bckempa @Abster101 @trey0
Plansys2 on Astrobee Noetic (nasa#107)
c84eff2 
* Add `survey_manager` subdirectory without layout for survey nodes

Includes placeholder directories with hyperlinked `readme.md` files in
the documentation hierarchy for the manger, planner, and bridge.

Per discussion with @marinagmoreira `survey_manager` lives under
`astrobee` to signify the code is intended for cross-compilation.

* Improve linking to survey manager docs

* Add files via upload

Adding planning domain, problem, and xml of the atomic actions of the robotic agents

* added  files to the correct directory

* adding soft constraints problem files

* Attempt at a complete MVP domain model

* Oops, remove redundant effect

* Simplified collision checking predicate

* In a working state

* Add sample_output_plan.txt

* Oops, remove obsolete commented-out code

* Fixed stereo survey part of the model based on analysis of old stereo surveys by Marina - unfortunately causes additional planner flakiness

* Update sample_output_plan.txt to reflect latest domain/problem

* Now generate PDDL problem from higher-level problem specification

* Tune panorama estimated duration

* Add plan_interpreter.py. Minor cleanup in problem_generator.py

* Simplify dynamic config just a bit

* Add `survey_manager` subdirectory without layout for survey nodes

Includes placeholder directories with hyperlinked `readme.md` files in
the documentation hierarchy for the manger, planner, and bridge.

Per discussion with @marinagmoreira `survey_manager` lives under
`astrobee` to signify the code is intended for cross-compilation.

* Improve linking to survey manager docs

* Remove `survey_bridge` capability will be added to `astrobee`

* Add traclabs plansys2 backport via submodule, thanks @ana-GT

* Move sub-modules to `survey_manager` path

* Upgrade behaviortree to V4

NOTE: If already installed, remove V3 before installing V4

* Cleanup unused, misplaced sub-modules, again.

* Remove `survey_manager` package and organize `survey_planner`

* Deprecate Ubuntu-16.04 (xenial) builds of Isaac to support Plansys2

- Remove Ubuntu-16.04 (xenial) CI builds
- Update dockerfile ubuntu version defaults to Ubuntu-20.04 (focal)
- Update apk build environment to Ubuntu-20.04 (focal)

* Fix python formatting

* Update to forks of traclabs backports

* Add readline development files to setup for plansys2 terminal interface

If you have already built your VM, run `sudo apt install libreadline-dev`

* Removed outdated PDDL files per @trey0

nasa#107 (comment)

* Revert CI upgrades for APK builds

---------

Co-authored-by: Abiola Akanni <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Trey Smith <[email protected]>
@Abster101
deleted problem files
1be2624
@Abster101 Abster101 marked this pull request as draft December 12, 2023 21:32
@Bckempa
Copy link
Contributor

Bckempa commented Dec 12, 2023

Both of these throw the following error when configuring the domain_expert node:
Requirement :typing needed to define types

See how this is declared in one of the example PDDL files

@trey0
Copy link
Contributor

trey0 commented Dec 13, 2023

Both of these throw the following error when configuring the domain_expert node: Requirement :typing needed to define types

@Bckempa can you describe how you tried to use the files @Abster101 added?

I thought that the :requirements clause was something you specified in a planning domain (here's the one we're using, which has it) rather than in problem instances like the files being added here.

@trey0
Copy link
Contributor

trey0 commented Dec 13, 2023

Adding new Survey manager pddl problem files

Resolving issues with https://github.com/nasa/isaac/blob/survey_manager/astrobee/survey_manager/survey_planner/data/jem_survey_dynamic.yaml#L38 && https://github.com/nasa/isaac/blob/survey_manager/astrobee/survey_manager/survey_planner/data/jem_survey_dynamic.yaml#L46

Hi @Abster101 - I'm confused about how this PR relates to the issues you mentioned.

To clarify, here's what to me would constitute resolving those issues:

  1. Uncomment the relevant lines in jem_survey_dynamic.yaml so we have the complete desired problem instance for the ISAAC13 survey (currently we are leaving out two goals: one of the stereo surveys, and returning one of the robots back to its berth in the dock).
  2. Generate the resulting problem instance using problem_generator.py - let me know if you're having trouble running it. You used to be able to run it with just the default command-line arguments, but Brian rearranged the folder structure a bit.
  3. Make some PlanSys2-compatible planner solve the resulting problem (e.g., choose a different planner or tune POPF configuration). Or (fallback) tweak how we've formulated both the domain and the problem so that we can express an equivalent problem instance with no missing goals in the new formulation and that enables one of the planners to solve it.
  4. It's important in the PR description to share the evidence that the planner is working with the desired problem instance. For example, my PR included sample_output_plan.txt, which showed how I invoked popf and the resulting plan.

You can see steps 1-2 as replicating the bug report before steps 3-4 fix it.

Given that context, I'm not sure I understand what this PR is trying to do.

@Bckempa
Copy link
Contributor

Bckempa commented Dec 20, 2023

Both of these throw the following error when configuring the domain_expert node: Requirement :typing needed to define types

@Bckempa can you describe how you tried to use the files @Abster101 added?

I thought that the :requirements clause was something you specified in a planning domain (here's the one we're using, which has it) rather than in problem instances like the files being added here.

Yep, that's on me. The correct domain still isn't loading right but that's a different issue.

@marinagmoreira marinagmoreira changed the base branch from survey_manager to develop January 3, 2024 03:16
@Bckempa
Copy link
Contributor

Bckempa commented Jan 16, 2024

@Abster101 is this still relevant? Looks like the branch needs some maintenance given the repo changes (probably just a rebase?) but only if you still plan to merge this.

@trey0
Copy link
Contributor

trey0 commented Feb 9, 2024

Let's reopen this later if needed.

@trey0 trey0 closed this Feb 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@Abster101 @Bckempa @trey0