Added Async Version

[cbkcbk]

Added a async version of the project, this uses dotnets async/await features and not threading. This should make it play better with single threaded applications and example web projects that use async/await heavily. i have also updated the workflows to hopefully add the async version to nuget and zip file

[caesuric]

Hey, thanks for contributing, and for using the library!

I have some questions and thoughts on this one.

1. Can you explain to me the benefits of this for single-threaded applications? There is already a way to call Plan() and Step() synchronously so I am a little confused.
2. If the changes do make sense, we should integrate them into the main project rather than creating a "fork" within the repo, mostly because I don't want to maintain two copies of the project going forward. Maybe this can be a feature of the Step() function. Can you help me understand what this PR helps with?

Thank you!

[cbkcbk]

Hi, The idea is that it should be possible to await functions from Actions, ensuring compatibility with single-threaded and multithreaded applications (such as Blazor WASM witch is only single threaded at the moment, enabling calls to a web API as an action without blocking the UI thread )

I made it so this will compile as its own nuget package and dll, so others can chose between the normal package and this async version.

[ray2k]

This would be pretty nice- working with web apis I need to do async/await in sensors and actions

[caesuric]

I'll take a deeper look at this and figure out how to integrate it into the existing version. I don't want to maintain two copies in the codebase with unnecessary code duplication, but it sounds like this is a feature that's wanted.

[cbkcbk]

After using this for a few days and conducting some tests, I believe I have found a better way to integrate this into a single project. I'm working on it right now and should be able to submit it for review in a few hours. Additionally, I uncovered what seemed to be a bug in the A* calculation that led to infinite loops while attempting to find a viable plan.

[cbkcbk]

i have commited my working version now.

[caesuric]

Thank you so much! I'll take a look again as soon as I'm able. :)

[caesuric]

Just wanted to follow up on this -- I have a solution that I think is a little more in line with how I want the library to be structured, and will be implementing it soon. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, and my apologies that this has taken a while.

[blooblahguy]

I think this would be such a great core function of the project, is there any update on this? It's been a couple months so if it's too much time implement, no problem, but I just want to make sure I choose the right library for my needs.

[caesuric]

I think this would be such a great core function of the project, is there any update on this? It's been a couple months so if it's too much time implement, no problem, but I just want to make sure I choose the right library for my needs.

Apologies, I have been distracted quite a bit by work and other projects. I'll try to incorporate this soon. There are some issues with incorporating as is so it needs some tweaks, but I will make it more of a priority.

[caesuric]

I (finally) added a PR version here that I am hoping will suffice and which will not break existing code: #35

If anyone gets a chance, please let me know if this version is okay, and I can adjust if needed. Thank you! @cbkcbk @ray2k @blooblahguy