Fix for at least two types of timestamps in PointCloud2 messages #13
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tizianoGuadagnino
requested review from
nachovizzo and
benemer
as code owners
|
Hi there, |
|
I was only wondering whether it is normal that the method outputs less points on rviz when the computation is faster ? (in debug vs release) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is mainly to tackle the issue reported in #12 . In essence, some drivers (in this case the Livox driver) express the timestamps in nanoseconds, while other vendors (e.g. Ouster if my mind doesn't fail me) report the stamp directly in seconds. To handle the scenario I decided to count the digits of the timestamps, as we know that ROS stores the seconds and nanoseconds in
int32. As this type cannot handle more than 10 digits, any stamp with more than 10 digits in the integer part of the floating point is assumed to be expressed in nanoseconds and converted.It will need some testing to be sure but on the preliminary analysis, I don't see any difference in results for our data. @KenN7 can you test it on your stuff? or if you can send me the data ;)