Skip to content
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

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.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants