Not needed agent specific workpeice spawning (wp-spawend-for)

[MostafaGomaa]

According to what I recall, we spawning workpiece for specific agents were implemented in Canada as there was a communication issue and world-model syncing was compromised. Now I am wondering if there is any reason why we still do that at the moment (as opposed to just spawning WPs unattached to an agent). The WP would be locked as a goal resource.

Since we are at that topic, it seems to me that there is also many unneeded reasoning about (self ?r) in pddl actions preconditions and effects which are not really needed. This constraint the execution of the plans such that it needs to be performed on the same robot that reasoned (with no foreseen advantage)

Would love to hear what you guys think @morxa @TarikViehmann

[TarikViehmann]

Now I am wondering if there is any reason why we still do that at the moment (as opposed to just spawning WPs unattached to an agent). The WP would be locked as a goal resource.

I am not sure if i get your proposed alternative correctly. Do you mean that there should be no spawning master for BS spawning but instead each agent should spawn WPs within the the plans that operate the base station?
This sounds like a reasonable alternative to me that could make the SPAWN-MAINTAIN goal tree obsolete.

Since we are at that topic, it seems to me that there is also many unneeded reasoning about (self ?r) in pddl actions preconditions and effects which are not really needed

Looking over the pddl domain it seems as if we are not consequent at all when it comes to self. We only use it at bs-dispense and as dummy precondition-effect pair in actions that are not modelled in pddl at the moment, such as the request-$mps-... actions (those initialize the asynchronous mps handling). So i guess it is safe to say that we do not gain anything from using self here.