Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use Arguments in launch files and enable their reuse. #76

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jun 14, 2021

Conversation

destogl
Copy link
Member

@destogl destogl commented Apr 7, 2021

  • Also add parameters for starting FakeSystem to demonstrate its functionality.

  • Add documentation about this Example and integrate into control.ros.org.

@destogl destogl requested a review from bmagyar April 17, 2021 06:39
Copy link
Member

@bmagyar bmagyar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

happy with the changes once there's some examples

@olivier-stasse
Copy link
Collaborator

@destogl Do you need help on this pull request ?
I guess when it will be pushed this will invalidate/have a strong impact on other PRs.

* Fix wrong macro in rrbot_system_multi_interface.urdf

* First correction to README.md (forward_command_controller_position)

* Bump ros2 CI actions to 2 for setup-ros

Co-authored-by: Olivier Stasse <olivier.stasse@laas.fr>
@destogl
Copy link
Member Author

destogl commented Jun 9, 2021

@olivier-stasse would also like to get review from you.

@destogl
Copy link
Member Author

destogl commented Jun 9, 2021

Again some ros2 issues on the CI...

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jun 9, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #76 (0d10b4b) into master (f5e163d) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master     #76     +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    0.00%   0.00%             
========================================
  Files          30       3     -27     
  Lines        2830     294   -2536     
========================================
+ Misses       2830     294   -2536     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 0.00% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...l_demo_hardware/src/rrbot_system_position_only.cpp
.../ros2_control_demo_hardware/src/diffbot_system.cpp
...l_demo_hardware/src/rrbot_system_position_only.cpp
...l_demo_hardware/src/rrbot_system_position_only.cpp
...l_demo_hardware/src/rrbot_system_position_only.cpp
...l_demo_hardware/src/rrbot_system_position_only.cpp
...l_demo_hardware/src/rrbot_system_position_only.cpp
...demo_hardware/src/rrbot_system_multi_interface.cpp
...l_demo_hardware/src/rrbot_system_position_only.cpp
.../ros2_control_demo_hardware/src/diffbot_system.cpp
... and 23 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f5e163d...0d10b4b. Read the comment docs.

@olivier-stasse
Copy link
Collaborator

@olivier-stasse would also like to get review from you.

Dear @destogl I was just reporting the constraints from the interface: it was saying that one reviewer with write access should validate the PR.

You, @bmagyar and @Karsten1987 are doing an incredible job, I was just trying to avoid having PR piling up without proper grounds.

Thanks again for your time and dedication.

@olivier-stasse
Copy link
Collaborator

Again some ros2 issues on the CI...

So we have to wait that the package number is updated (I checked the number of the package required and indeed it does not correspond) ? Or is it a transient situation with the buildfarm ?

Copy link
Member

@jordan-palacios jordan-palacios left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Demos work fine for me aside for a few minor details.

Current Example enumeration goes like this: 1 -> 1 -> 2 -> 10 :D

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated
The two illegal controllers demonstrate how hardware interface declines faulty claims to access joint command interfaces.


### Example 10: "Differential drive mobile robot"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For this demo the default rviz configuration file did not set up correctly the fixed frame (I'm guessing it's odom) nor did it showed the Robot Model.

After fixing this and sending the velocity command the demo runs fine.

One thing I noticed is the velocity being correctly updated in the /joint_states while the wheel positions is fixed to zero.

header:
  stamp:
    sec: 1623246367
    nanosec: 753984445
  frame_id: ''
name:
- right_wheel_joint
- left_wheel_joint
position:
- 0.0
- 0.0
velocity:
- 50.0
- 43.33333333333333
effort:
- .nan
- .nan

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @jordan-palacios I will try to propose a fix by tomorrow morning.

Copy link
Contributor

@mahaarbo mahaarbo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've made some minor comments on the documentation, hope you don't mind!

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/index.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@Karsten1987 Karsten1987 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I mentioned it inline, but I'd consider moving the description for a specific robot in their own README and link it from the top-level

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ros2_control_demo_bringup/CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ros2_control_demo_bringup/CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ros2_control_demo_description/CMakeLists.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@olivier-stasse
Copy link
Collaborator

PR #104 adresses the reviews. Thanks to all.

Co-authored-by: Jordan Palacios <j.palacios1986@gmail.com>
@destogl
Copy link
Member Author

destogl commented Jun 11, 2021

Dear @destogl I was just reporting the constraints from the interface: it was saying that one reviewer with write access should validate the PR.

This setup ensured the quality of packages in general. Nevertheless, we value every review because this guarantees more eyes and even higher quality and sensibility of an implementation :)

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
destogl and others added 3 commits June 11, 2021 11:48
Co-authored-by: mahaarbo <mahaarbo@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Karsten Knese <Karsten1987@users.noreply.github.com>
* Implement classical differential wheel robot.
* Add rviz configuration file.

Co-authored-by: Olivier Stasse <olivier.stasse@laas.fr>
Co-authored-by: Denis Štogl <destogl@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: mahaarbo <mahaarbo@users.noreply.github.com>
@destogl
Copy link
Member Author

destogl commented Jun 11, 2021

Thank you all for the input! Especially to:

It's really great to be a part of such a community :)

@destogl destogl linked an issue Jun 11, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request
@olivier-stasse
Copy link
Collaborator

Dear @destogl and all,
Do you think that it will be possible to merge this PR in master or is there other things to do ?
Issue #75 could be solved in a different PR. This one is already really big. I believe that add-rrbot- corrections is already acting like a devel branch.

Copy link
Contributor

@Karsten1987 Karsten1987 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with Olivier. Let's get this one in and follow up with other smaller increments in case it's still not fully accurate.

@bmagyar
Copy link
Member

bmagyar commented Jun 14, 2021

Phew, this was quite a marathon to review! :D merging...

@bmagyar bmagyar merged commit 4888549 into master Jun 14, 2021
@destogl
Copy link
Member Author

destogl commented Jun 14, 2021

@Karsten1987 @bmagyar thanks for final approvals!

@destogl destogl deleted the add-rrbot-corrections branch June 14, 2021 20:32
@Karsten1987
Copy link
Contributor

@destogl did you ever test the gazebo demo of this PR?
I get a segfault when trying to launch the gazebo rrbot on OSX as well as Linux:

[gzserver-1] [Err] [Model.cc:1137] Exception occured in the Load function of plugin with name[gazebo_ros2_control] and filename[libgazebo_ros2_control.so]. This plugin will not run.
[ros2_control_node-3] [INFO] [1623786805.821751090] [RRBotSystemPositionOnlyHardware]: 0.0 seconds left...
[ros2_control_node-3] [INFO] [1623786805.821794391] [RRBotSystemPositionOnlyHardware]: System Successfully started!
[ERROR] [gzserver-1]: process has died [pid 32476, exit code -11, cmd 'gzserver       --verbose                                                                -s libgazebo_ros_init.so   -s libgazebo_ros_factory.so   -s libgazebo_ros_force_system.so       '].
[gzserver-1]

I guess that's really on me though, I should have tested it correctly before approving.

@olivier-stasse
Copy link
Collaborator

@Karsten1987 @destogl my bad too.

I have a fix for starting Gazebo here olivier-stasse@4712995

I will try to test the controller probably having in mind the fixes in PR #103 .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

refactor demo_robot description folder in its own package
7 participants