Adds pose and twist with covariance messages bridging#222
Adds pose and twist with covariance messages bridging#222adityapande-1995 merged 18 commits intoros2from
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
|
Please don't forget to update the README with the new supported conversions: https://github.com/ignitionrobotics/ros_ign/tree/ros2/ros_ign_bridge |
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
jacobperron
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM pending CI.
It's a bit unfortunate that the Ignition covariance values are not constrained to be exactly 36 values.
| convert_ign_to_ros(ign_msg.pose().position(), ros_msg.pose.position); | ||
| convert_ign_to_ros(ign_msg.pose().orientation(), ros_msg.pose.orientation); | ||
| int data_size = ign_msg.covariance().data_size(); | ||
| if (data_size == 36) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How likely is this going to be false? Seems less than ideal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, this is not likely to be false, but I was still worried if this loop will segfault at runtime if the data array in ros_msg.covariance[ ] exceeds index. There is no explicit check on Float_V size.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a way to define the type such that it always has a size of 36?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe those are not supported by protobuf, used by ign-msgs : https://www.aapelivuorinen.com/blog/2019/07/12/protobuf-arrays/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah I don't think protobuf supports fixed size arrays
we are on the verge of releasing the ign-msgs file into ign-msgs8. Does this approach seem reasonable to you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to keep this PR as-is. I was just curious if it was possible to avoid.
|
CI is finally running for this branch. There are new linter errors: |
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
8c3ceac to
8154303
Compare
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Aditya <aditya050995@gmail.com>
|
There is a problem with the post shutdown tests, which seems unrelated to this PR. Tested locally with the |
🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸
🎉 New feature
Summary
This PR aims to interface the following message types :
ignition::msgs::PoseWithCovariance<-->geometry_msgs/msg/PoseWithCovarianceignition::msgs::TwistWithCovariance<-->geometry_msgs/msg/TwistWithCovarianceignition::msgs::OdometryWithCovariance<-->nav_msgs/msg/OdometryThis is a follow up PR to the message types added here : gazebosim/gz-msgs#224
Test it
TODO
Checklist
codecheckpassed (See contributing)Note to maintainers: Remember to use Squash-Merge and edit the commit message to match the pull request summary while retaining
Signed-off-bymessages.🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸