-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 354
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
[JSB] added fixes to mantain the joint names order #1572
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[JSB] added fixes to mantain the joint names order #1572
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1572 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 85.08% 85.10% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 123 123
Lines 11703 11709 +6
Branches 999 997 -2
==========================================
+ Hits 9957 9965 +8
Misses 1430 1430
+ Partials 316 314 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't it now just use the order of the joints defined in the URDF, if we use the auto-export of the state interfaces? But with the example_1 one gets
$ ros2 topic echo /joint_states --once
header:
stamp:
sec: 1741554154
nanosec: 735820900
frame_id: ''
name:
- joint2
- joint1
position:
- 0.0
- 0.0
velocity:
- .nan
- .nan
effort:
- .nan
- .nan
If the joints parameter is not defined, then it publishes in the original order of the state interfaces |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the follow-ups and the docs, just minor suggestions there
Co-authored-by: Christoph Fröhlich <christophfroehlich@users.noreply.github.com>
The order of the joints in the message is the same as the order of the joints in the URDF file, which is inherited from the loaded URDF model and independent of the order in the `ros2_control` tag. | ||
|
||
3. Defined ``joints`` parameter: | ||
The order of the joints in the message is the same as the order of the joints in the ``joints`` parameter. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should extend this to explain what happens when the list is less than the total available joints list and what if it has joints not available in the system currently
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bmagyar Done :)
I've add some fixes to the codes to retain the proper naming order. it will maintain the same naming as the state_interfaces. Most of the time. it is same as requested.
I confirm that it is working as expected. The following are the results after testing on the TIAGo robot
With
master
branch:With the fix proposed in this PR: