Skip to content
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

Provide feedback during ExecuteTaskSolution action #653

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 11, 2025

Conversation

rhaschke
Copy link
Contributor

@rhaschke rhaschke commented Feb 9, 2025

Alternative implementation to #652

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Feb 9, 2025

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.85714% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 59.03%. Comparing base (9ea1692) to head (af9c82a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...abilities/src/execute_task_solution_capability.cpp 92.86% 1 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #653      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   59.02%   59.03%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          97       97              
  Lines        9001     9004       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         5312     5315       +3     
  Misses       3689     3689              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@rhaschke rhaschke merged commit 9a98a25 into moveit:master Feb 11, 2025
7 of 8 checks passed
no = solution.sub_trajectory.size()](const plan_execution::ExecutableMotionPlan* /*plan*/) {
// publish feedback
moveit_task_constructor_msgs::ExecuteTaskSolutionFeedback feedback;
feedback.sub_id = i;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a quick remark. If we keep it as is now (publishing the feedback only after the subtrajectory finishes), I think it makes more sense to use i + 1 here to match what is parsed in exec_traj.description_. Otherwise, if we decide to publish feedback at the start of the subtrajectory as well, publishing 0 initially would be reasonable.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants