Conversation
bkanator
force-pushed
the
migrate_to_v9.0
branch
from
ca80bfd to
332f45e
Compare
|
ran pre-commit |
bkanator
force-pushed
the
migrate_to_v9.0
branch
from
332f45e to
ae30054
Compare
|
added fix for joint jog |
nbbrooks
left a comment
nbbrooks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My main Q is, can we replace the remaining JTC with a JTAC?
| planning_groups: ['left_manipulator', 'right_manipulator'] | ||
| controllers: ['left_joint_velocity_controller', 'right_joint_velocity_controller'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not a big deal, but I don't see a reason to have the Joint Jog control split into two groups. It would mean that in the Joint Jog panel you'd have to keep selecting between L and R to command those joints. I would unify these under a single one.
| - "moveit_pro::behaviors::NavBehaviorsLoader" | ||
| - "moveit_pro::behaviors::VisionBehaviorsLoader" | ||
| - "moveit_pro::behaviors::ConverterBehaviorsLoader" | ||
| - "moveit_pro::behaviors::MujocoBehaviorsLoader" |
| joint_trajectory_controller: | ||
| type: joint_trajectory_controller/JointTrajectoryController | ||
| left_manipulator_joint_trajectory_controller: | ||
| type: joint_trajectory_controller/JointTrajectoryController | ||
| right_manipulator_joint_trajectory_controller: | ||
| type: joint_trajectory_controller/JointTrajectoryController |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we remove the JTCs in favor of their JTAC?
| target_joint_state="{target_joint_state}" | ||
| controller_names="{joint_trajectory_controller_name}" | ||
| controller_action_server="{controller_action_server}" | ||
| execution_pipeline="jtc" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we still need a custom request_teleoperation objective or can we use the core one?
Here are the assumptions core Request Teleop has:
<input_port
name="joint_trajectory_controller_name"
default="joint_trajectory_admittance_controller"
/>
<input_port name="default_planning_group" default="manipulator" />
<input_port name="default_ik_frame" default="grasp_link" />
<input_port name="link_padding" default="0.01" />
<input_port name="execution_pipeline" default="jtac" />If we replace the JTC with JTAC this should be fine. I thought default_ik_frame might be a problem but it isn't used anywhere in that objective anymore.
2 participants
The migration testing covered: