You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
When using unified-planning/engines/TimeTriggeredPlanValidator in unit-tests, a call to unified_planning/model/walkers/state_evaluator.py::StateEvaluator.evaluate() fails the assertion assert r.is_constant(). The following print shows {expression} {r} {r.is_constant()}:
Both expression and r are of type OperatorKind.EQUALS, and this is why the assertion fails. If we mock the function evaluate with:
the assertion now succeeds. This leads us to believe that r is not being properly evaluated, and we're not sure why.
Expected behavior
We expect there to be no errors raised in our valid PDDL plans.
Additional context
The same PDDL used to work fine, but now it doesn't. We are not sure when did this assertion start failing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Describe the bug
When using
unified-planning/engines/TimeTriggeredPlanValidator
in unit-tests, a call tounified_planning/model/walkers/state_evaluator.py::StateEvaluator.evaluate()
fails the assertionassert r.is_constant()
. The following print shows{expression} {r} {r.is_constant()}
:Both
expression
andr
are of typeOperatorKind.EQUALS
, and this is why the assertion fails. If we mock the function evaluate with:the assertion now succeeds. This leads us to believe that
r
is not being properly evaluated, and we're not sure why.Expected behavior
We expect there to be no errors raised in our valid PDDL plans.
Additional context
The same PDDL used to work fine, but now it doesn't. We are not sure when did this assertion start failing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: