Fluent Symbol and State Variable Detection

[miquelramirez]

At the moment the unit tests:

• test_task_index_process_symbols_fluents
• test_task_index_create_state_variables

are broken.

The reason for this is that the predicate clear(x) is not being picked up as a fluent. This is expected, as clear has been defined as part of a state constraint, without specific syntax giving it away as a fluent symbol.

How can we figure out that the value of clear will be changing without syntactic sugar neither compiling them into actions? I think the way is to look at the interpretation given as the initial state of the FSTRIPS problem... wouldn't it?

[miquelramirez]

Remark by @gfrances made by email

El tema de los fluents es relevante a toda la discusión anterior: para tener un Tarski + FSTRIPS "estándar" funcionando, creo que ahí no hay ningún problema: la definición de cuándo un símbolo es fluent se saca de la sintaxis del problema, concretamente de los efectos, etc., as usual. Claro que tienes razón, y si queremos proponer / experimentar con todo el tema de definir axiomas mediante constraints, etc., que ciertamente me parece interesante, entonces hay que discutir bien cómo queda esta cuestión de los fluents. My take is: seguramente haya que acabar etiquetando como "primary" & "secondary" algunos símbolos, etc., como hacía Patrik.

[miquelramirez]

Progress done on this, see -- https://github.com/aig-upf/tarski/commit/6fd1a737fa815b9dd7f8057489af5211cfc7c71b -- and -- 42169a0c1baaaecd887c81abb893ee7bcc89b7c6

[miquelramirez]

Closed until some tests prove it broken