VAL does not accept a domain file that has more than 8999 predicates

[guicho271828]

There seems to be some constant

[DerekLong101]

Really? I don't believe that there should be. Are you willing to share an example domain/problem?

---

From: Masataro Asai [email protected] Sent: 22 February 2019 11:54:05 To: KCL-Planning/VAL Cc: Subscribed Subject: [KCL-Planning/VAL] VAL does not accept a domain file that has more than 8999 predicates (#34)

There seems to be some constant

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FKCL-Planning%2FVAL%2Fissues%2F34&data=01%7C01%7Cderek.long%40kcl.ac.uk%7C00085650b8984671049808d698bc72cb%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=MCEuU%2B6jSrkg82ygRUAcM7lG9vZS92fAsOK4%2BxXs2XA%3D&reserved=0, or mute the threadhttps://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAHSnVKsizIAoA5fx7dusKsUFWSlKP9feks5vP9pdgaJpZM4bJcvw&data=01%7C01%7Cderek.long%40kcl.ac.uk%7C00085650b8984671049808d698bc72cb%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=%2BwlmDqAn1NXhJ%2FGmLBnxL%2B83FJDL6hCrYivYwZ3Tibc%3D&reserved=0.

[guicho271828]

The previous test was done in my HEAD a3d89ee, but I got the same results on a556539 .

$ ./test.sh
domain10000.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9980.pddl
domain9981.pddl
domain9982.pddl
domain9983.pddl
domain9984.pddl
domain9985.pddl
domain9986.pddl
domain9987.pddl
domain9988.pddl
domain9989.pddl
domain9990.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9991.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9992.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9993.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9994.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9995.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9996.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9997.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9998.pddl
Problem in domain definition!
domain9999.pddl
Problem in domain definition!

[guicho271828]

issue-34.tar.gz

[DerekLong101]

I don't see this domain set on your branch.

---

From: Masataro Asai [email protected] Sent: 22 February 2019 13:29:47 To: KCL-Planning/VAL Cc: Long, Derek; Comment Subject: Re: [KCL-Planning/VAL] VAL does not accept a domain file that has more than 8999 predicates (#34)

The previous test was done in my HEAD a3d89eehttps://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FKCL-Planning%2FVAL%2Fcommit%2Fa3d89ee04c617398d501a6a75bdc157a1c65ebde&data=01%7C01%7Cderek.long%40kcl.ac.uk%7C2d2cf96429144f90906808d698c9d16c%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=%2FwZtZQSj8OJlhqu8lBW9qMJW4xNUW03iVEymuNAkA9E%3D&reserved=0, but I got the same results on a556539https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FKCL-Planning%2FVAL%2Fcommit%2Fa5565396007eee73ac36527fbf904142b3077c74&data=01%7C01%7Cderek.long%40kcl.ac.uk%7C2d2cf96429144f90906808d698c9d16c%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=JcoBcDVDIbrWqgtSqMSVzk5ElL6MLvWQ0yjKXK4gndY%3D&reserved=0 .

$ ./test.sh domain10000.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9980.pddl domain9981.pddl domain9982.pddl domain9983.pddl domain9984.pddl domain9985.pddl domain9986.pddl domain9987.pddl domain9988.pddl domain9989.pddl domain9990.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9991.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9992.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9993.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9994.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9995.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9996.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9997.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9998.pddl Problem in domain definition! domain9999.pddl Problem in domain definition!

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FKCL-Planning%2FVAL%2Fissues%2F34%23issuecomment-466396418&data=01%7C01%7Cderek.long%40kcl.ac.uk%7C2d2cf96429144f90906808d698c9d16c%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=9mASY7xnRvK5KjUlEF1wMQ0OCJdnpOkp7Kk8YfDIolI%3D&reserved=0, or mute the threadhttps://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAHSnVJNfgNSXGStSdZ-G-DphT9M8WMqUks5vP_DLgaJpZM4bJcvw&data=01%7C01%7Cderek.long%40kcl.ac.uk%7C2d2cf96429144f90906808d698c9d16c%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&sdata=bherckW3ynyzMIyV1M8dsSQxOmeun%2Bl1E9GJopv8ARs%3D&reserved=0.

[guicho271828]

I didn't pushed this file on the repo. plz download the archive

[guicho271828]

I just noticed you are responding via email. If the archive is not attached, you can check the web

[guicho271828]

Probably this. https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Memory-Management.html

src/pddlplus.cpp:# define YYMAXDEPTH 10000 Although, the file is not currently used. Probably pddl+.lex.

[guicho271828]

%.cpp : %.yacc
flex -+ src/Parser/pddl+.lex -o /src/Parser/lex.yy.cc; bison $< -o src/pddl+.cpp

This flex invocation is wrong. The options should come before the input. The right code is

%.cpp : %.yacc
flex -+  -o /src/Parser/lex.yy.cc src/Parser/pddl+.lex; bison $< -o src/pddl+.cpp

[maltehelmert]

Hi all, perhaps this has the same underlying cause as issue #16? (VAL failing with "bad plan description" if the plan has more than 9994 actions). In both cases the limit seems to be in a similar ballpark, so perhaps it comes from the same source.

[guicho271828]

~lex.yy.cc was not even used/linked...~ oops, this was wrong.

[guicho271828]

YYMAXDEPTH solved the issue. I have not tested #16 but it is highly likely because of the same reason. On the way, I spotted 7 more files that are not necessary for building VAL and fixed the Makefile.

[speckdavid]

I can confirm that increasing YYMAXDEPTH solves issue #16.

[guicho271828]

Got a company approval for pushing the code / keep contributing.

[DerekLong101]

Thanks for this. Are we actually interested in having the MAX DEPTH value increased? And if so, to what value? Or might it be better to put a graceful exit for this case requesting recompile with different parameters?