-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
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
Bug fix satisfies bounds #42
Bug fix satisfies bounds #42
Conversation
The problem you are trying to address may be related to an issue with the MoveGroupInterface in setting the start state to the current state #37. In summary, that is an issue that needs to be addressed in moveit. In order to make sure that it isn't a moveit issue could you briefly describe your test case (using rviz moveit, service calls, MoveGroup, etc)? |
Yes. I'm using the normal rviz interface with the motion planner to send a planning request. I changed the stomp_planner cpp to print the state that it gets in the request. [ INFO] [1494595802.853585269, 1822.656000000]: START STATE:joint_state: [ INFO] [1494595803.792179745, 1823.559000000]: STOMP found a valid solution with cost 18.026076 after 1 iterations Then If I move the robot around, using the teleop node for example it gives the following error: 000000]: START STATE:joint_state: [ERROR] [1494598049.751569736, 4017.404000000]: STOMP Start joint pose is out of bounds My planning group are only the first six joints. If I check in moveit the active joint I got the list with the name of the first active joints. So something is wrong with the state->satisfiesBounds() function. This error happens because the joints from the wheels are also including in the planning and state validation which should not happen. With the changes that I suggested it fixed the problem. I also tested it in the real robot and it worked. |
I'm somewhat on the fence about this but I agree with you on that the planner should only be responsible to verify the bounds of the joints that are in the designated planning group. In addition to the changed you already made, could you also add a check for the |
👍 ok to merge |
@ipa-bfb thanks for the contribution. |
Solution for the issue #40