mricon / ingress-fieldplan Goto Github PK

Need to revert to the previous capture process, because we lose possible improvements at optimization stage or outright link to uncaptured portals.

There's no need to travel to a portal for capture if we're not making any links to it before coming back to it for linking.

I just noticed that the generated plan say several times that I should link to portal "Ancient viking stone" - but it doesn't mention that I should go to to this portal and get keys. Maby a bug?

This is the plan (made by 25000 iterations)

Google's ortools-7 is not backwards compatible, so fix the code to support the newer release.

I'm getting an error and can't figure out what the issue is.

Traceback (most recent call last): Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\Users\sool1\Anaconda3\lib\multiprocessing\process.py", line 258, in _bootstrap self.run() File "C:\Users\sool1\Anaconda3\lib\multiprocessing\process.py", line 93, in run self._target(*self._args, **self._kwargs) File "C:\Users\sool1\Downloads\ingress-fieldplan-master\ingress-fieldplan-master\fieldplan.py", line 49, in queue_job b = mygraph.copy() Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\Users\sool1\Anaconda3\lib\multiprocessing\process.py", line 258, in _bootstrap self.run() AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'copy'

Sometimes the starting portal in the generated plan is a portal furthest away from my current position. In these cases it is hard to find a alternative plan, because Fieldplan automatically uses the best one. I would like to suggest a starting point (and a end point).

This is how it could work:

For each generated plan, calculate the distance between the first portal in the plan and the start point and add this distance to the total distance. Keep plan if total distance is shorter than previous best found distance.

Also, an optional end point could work in a similar way: For each generated plan, calculate the distance between the last portal in the plan and the end point and add this distance to the total distance. Keep plan if total distance is shorter than previous best found distance.

There is a locale issue with Google Spreadsheet. Some locales use a comma as argument separators, others (e.g. some European countries) use semi-colons (;). Ingress Fieldplan use comma and because of this the HYPERLINK function does not work in my country.

Google Spreadsheet say "Formula parse error".

In other words HYPERLINK("http....","2 km") needs to be changed to HYPERLINK("http....";"2 km").

Could the separator be a option?

In my scenario all portals are usually my color already - and I have keys for them. Is there an even more optimal route in this scenario? Just curious. Maby there could be a optional column to specify the current colour of each portal?

makePlan.py: error: the following arguments are required: -s/--sheetid

solved: wrong argument input string.

A feature request: If not too much work, it would be helpful if the finished generated plan could be exported as json to use with IITC Draw Tools. I'm not sure of the format used in Draw Tools, but it seems pretty simple.

They appear to be either missing or right in the middle of the graph, which is not right in either case. I should either not map them at all or map them properly.

Hi, ** ingress-fieldplan ** directly and transitively introduced multiple versions of httplib2.

As shown in the following full dependency graph of ingress-fieldplan, ingress-fieldplan requires httplib2 (the latest version), while the installed version of google-api-python-client( 1.7.10) requires httplib2>=0.9.2, <1dev.

According to Pip's “first found wins” installation strategy, httplib2 0.13.1 is the actually installed version.

Although the first found package version httplib2 0.13.1 just satisfies the later dependency constraint (httplib2>=0.9.2,<1dev), it will lead to a build failure once developers release a newer version of httplib2.

Dependency tree--------

ingress-fieldplan-master
| +-google-api-python-client(version range:*)
| | +-httplib2(version range:>=0.9.2,<1dev)
| | +-google-auth(version range:>=1.4.1)
| | +-google-auth-httplib2(version range:>=0.0.3)
| | +-six(version range:>=1.6.1,<2dev)
| | +-uritemplate(version range:>=3.0.0,<4dev)
| +-googlemaps(version range:*)
| +-httplib2(version range:*)
| +-matplotlib(version range:*)
| +-networkx(version range:*)
| +-numpy(version range:*)
| +-oauth2client(version range:*)
| | +-httplib2(version range:>=0.9.1)
| | +-pyasn1(version range:>=0.1.7)
| | +-pyasn1-modules(version range:>=0.0.5)
| | | +-pyasn1(version range:>=0.4.6,<0.5.0)
| | +-rsa(version range:>=3.1.4)
| | +-six(version range:>=1.6.1)
| +-ortools(version range:<8.0,>=7.0)

Thanks for your attention.
Best,
Neolith

I've just updated Maxfield to version 4.0, which is a nearly complete re-write of the original code. It's way more efficient and optimized now, and the code is cleaner.

If you're interested in updating this, it would solve some of the other issues (DiGraph one, specifically). Alternatively, if you want to implement your google drive stuff in the v4.0 framework, I'd accept the pull request and add the feature to the website!

Sometimes I got plans with "8 out, 13 in" links for portal A and "1-2 in" for portals linked with it. But if I use one SBUL on portal A, I can reverse links and minimize the time for hacking it.

Can you add support for installing 1 (16 out) or 2 (24 out) SBULs?

I'm trying to install ingress fieldplan on a macbook pro (2009) with osx el capitan 10.11.6.

It seems latest ortools is 7.1. Fieldplan requirements is "< 7.0"

I get the following error when trying to install:

$ pip3 install -r requirements.txt
Requirement already satisfied: matplotlib in /usr/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages (from -r requirements.txt (line 1)) (3.1.0)
Requirement already satisfied: networkx in /usr/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages (from -r requirements.txt (line 2)) (2.3)
Requirement already satisfied: numpy in /usr/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages (from -r requirements.txt (line 3)) (1.16.4)
Requirement already satisfied: google-api-python-client in /usr/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages (from -r requirements.txt (line 4)) (1.7.9)
Requirement already satisfied: oauth2client in /usr/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages (from -r requirements.txt (line 5)) (4.1.3)
Requirement already satisfied: httplib2 in /usr/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages (from -r requirements.txt (line 6)) (0.13.0)
**Collecting ortools<7.0 (from -r requirements.txt (line 7))
ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement ortools<7.0 (from -r requirements.txt (line 7)) (from versions: 7.0.6546, 7.1.6720, 7.2.6977)
ERROR: No matching distribution found for ortools<7.0 (from -r requirements.txt (line 7))**`

Not sure how to proceed. I've tried editing requirements.txt and remove the version check, but it seems that does not help. When running fieldplan.py I get error.

$ ./fieldplan.py -m bicycling -s https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FPMcKGvJATRDTVnJLHtXaOSZo4WST9GssxxxxxxLs/edit?usp=sharing
Grabbing the spreadsheet
Adding portal: ...
Adding portal: ...
Adding portal: ...
Adding portal: ...
Adding portal: ...
Adding portal: ...
Adding portal: ...
Considering 11 portals
Generating the distance matrix
Finding the shortest plan
Started 2 worker processes
Ctrl-C to exit and use the latest best plan
Process Process-1:
Process Process-2:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/Cellar/python/3.7.3/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.7/lib/python3.7/multiprocessing/process.py", line 297, in _bootstrap
self.run()
File "/usr/local/Cellar/python/3.7.3/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.7/lib/python3.7/multiprocessing/process.py", line 99, in run
self._target(*self._args, **self._kwargs)
File "./fieldplan.py", line 57, in queue_job
workplan = maxfield.makeWorkPlan(linkplan, b, ab, args.roundtrip, args.beginfirst)
File "/Users/daniel/ingress-fieldplan-master/lib/maxfield.py", line 221, in makeWorkPlan
routing = pywrapcp.RoutingModel(len(all_p), 1, [endp], [startp])
File "/Users/daniel/Library/Python/3.7/lib/python/site-  packages/ortools/constraint_solver/pywrapcp.py", line 3197, in __init__
this = _pywrapcp.new_RoutingModel(*args)
NotImplementedError: Wrong number or type of arguments for overloaded function 'new_RoutingModel'.
Possible C/C++ prototypes are:
operations_research::RoutingModel::RoutingModel(operations_research::RoutingIndexManager const &)
operations_research::RoutingModel::RoutingModel(operations_research::RoutingIndexManager const &,operations_research::RoutingModelParameters const &)

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/Cellar/python/3.7.3/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.7/lib/python3.7/multiprocessing/process.py", line 297, in _bootstrap
self.run()
File "/usr/local/Cellar/python/3.7.3/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.7/lib/python3.7/multiprocessing/process.py", line 99, in run
self._target(*self._args, **self._kwargs)
File "./fieldplan.py", line 57, in queue_job
workplan = maxfield.makeWorkPlan(linkplan, b, ab, args.roundtrip, args.beginfirst)
File "/Users/daniel/ingress-fieldplan-master/lib/maxfield.py", line 221, in makeWorkPlan
routing = pywrapcp.RoutingModel(len(all_p), 1, [endp], [startp])
File "/Users/daniel/Library/Python/3.7/lib/python/site-packages/ortools/constraint_solver/pywrapcp.py", line 3197, in __init__
this = _pywrapcp.new_RoutingModel(*args)
NotImplementedError: Wrong number or type of arguments for overloaded function 'new_RoutingModel'.
Possible C/C++ prototypes are:
operations_research::RoutingModel::RoutingModel(operations_research::RoutingIndexManager const &)
operations_research::RoutingModel::RoutingModel(operations_research::RoutingIndexManager const &,operations_research::RoutingModelParameters const &)`

Could this be related to that I'm using ortools 7.1?

DiGraph update. node is replaced by nodes.
Changes required in maxfield.py and Triangle.py and gsheets.py
changes.zip

Ingress Fieldplan sorts by max area/min or by max AP/min. However, in my scenario time is not that important - because I get the keys to a distance portal from another agent. I can therefore link to that portal without traveling at all. In my scenario I'm trying to create a BAF using -u and -c idkfa flags, however the plan I'm getting is not the best MU - because the program assumes I will travel to all portals.

Would it be possible to order by max area (or MU) first and time as a second factor?

I’m using version 3.2.0.

When running:

$ ./fieldplan.py -c idkfa -m bicycling -s https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LNwNO7KuXxkvkyfCmfYuz4OZ0c9voP0O4oV7N7nyPMc/edit?usp=sharing

I get the result:

Ctrl-C to exit and use the latest best plan
(      2.69 km, 0.11 km2, 12 portals, 55575 AP, 0:30:15): 1/10000     
(      2.48 km, 0.13 km2, 12 portals, 55575 AP, 0:28:15): 1/10000     
(      2.20 km, 0.10 km2, 12 portals, 57138 AP, 0:27:30): 33/10000     
(      1.61 km, 0.12 km2, 12 portals, 55575 AP, 0:25:15): 177/10000     
(      2.03 km, 0.12 km2, 12 portals, 56825 AP, 0:25:15): 24/10000     
(Best: 1.64 km, 0.14 km2, 12 portals, 57138 AP, 0:24:30): 10000/10000     
Saved plan cache in /Users/daniel/.cache/ingress-fieldmap/plans/bicycling-eeec006ade36f97de13326a31d6f807bb1aab15e
.
.
Total workplan distance: 1.64 km
Total workplan play time: 0:24:30 (0:00:00 bicycling)
Total AP: 57138 (33138 without capturing)
Adding "🚲 0:24:30 (1.64km/12P/57,138AP)" sheet with 29 actions
Resizing columns and adding colours
Spreadsheet generation done

Q1: What do ”0:00:00 bicycling” mean?

If i rerun with the exact command I get the result:

Loading cache data from cache /Users/daniel/.cache/ingress-fieldmap/plans/bicycling-eeec006ade36f97de13326a31d6f807bb1aab15e
Best distance of the plan loaded from cache: 1.64 km
Best coverage of the plan loaded from cache: 0.14 km2
Best AP of the plan loaded from cache: 57138
Finding an efficient plan that maximizes AP
Started 2 worker processes
Ctrl-C to exit and use the latest best plan
(      1.64 km, 0.14 km2, 12 portals, 57138 AP, 0:44:00): 1/10000     
(      2.54 km, 0.12 km2, 12 portals, 55262 AP, 0:30:00): 9/10000     
(      2.28 km, 0.11 km2, 12 portals, 57138 AP, 0:29:30): 1/10000     
(      2.46 km, 0.12 km2, 12 portals, 56512 AP, 0:29:00): 1/10000     
(      2.15 km, 0.11 km2, 12 portals, 56512 AP, 0:27:00): 7/10000     
(      2.40 km, 0.14 km2, 12 portals, 57138 AP, 0:26:30): 89/10000     
(      2.22 km, 0.15 km2, 12 portals, 56825 AP, 0:26:15): 211/10000     
(      1.82 km, 0.11 km2, 12 portals, 56512 AP, 0:26:00): 32/10000     
(      1.95 km, 0.11 km2, 12 portals, 55262 AP, 0:25:00): 147/10000     
(      1.96 km, 0.10 km2, 12 portals, 56825 AP, 0:25:15): 286/10000     
(Best: 1.32 km, 0.12 km2, 12 portals, 57138 AP, 0:24:30): 10000/10000     

Q2: Why does it start using a plan of 44:00 minutes when the already cached best plan already should be 24:30 minutes? Something wrong with the cached data?

Sorry if I’m missing something obvious.

multiprocessing.Queue.qsize() raises NotImplementedError on Unix platforms like Mac OS X where sem_getvalue() is not implemented.

I love the app already, the only real problem I've run into is plans that start me or leave me out in the middle of nowhere.

I would love a flag that simply started and ended the generated plan at the first portal, taking that into account in the calculated distance.

I implemented a version of this very naively, where the flag means that (0, None, 0) is added at the beginning and end of each generated plan.

I can provide a pull request with that code which seems to work, though I lack understanding to be sure it's doing exactly the right thing.

Currently the application order by best AP/minute. However, if portals are close, then time wont matter as much. Would it be possible to make an option to order by AP first and time secondly?

I encountered an issue while using the Ingress Field Planner tool where the code breaks if a new solution has the same name as a previous one. This happens when the code tries to create a new sheet in Google Sheets with the same name as an existing one, which is not allowed.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Run the code and get some results.
2. Stop the code before it finishes all iterations.
3. Run the code again.
4. If the new solution has the same name as the previous one, the code will break with the following error message:

googleapiclient.errors.HttpError: <HttpError 400 when requesting https://sheets.googleapis.com/v4/spreadsheets/[SPREADSHEET_ID]:batchUpdate?alt=json returned "Invalid requests[0].addSheet: A sheet with the name "[SHEET_NAME]" already exists. Please enter another name.". Details: "Invalid requests[0].addSheet: A sheet with the name "[SHEET_NAME]" already exists. Please enter another name.">

Expected behavior:

The code should either overwrite the existing sheet with the new solution or append a unique identifier to the sheet name to avoid naming conflicts.

Suggested fix:

Before creating a new sheet, the code should check if a sheet with the same name already exists. If it does, the code could either:

• Overwrite the existing sheet with the new solution, or
• Append a unique identifier (such as a timestamp or random number) to the sheet name to avoid naming conflicts.