-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 327
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
[JTC] Fix tests and set_hold_position #607
Conversation
Codecov Report
❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #607 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 35.78% 36.53% +0.75%
==========================================
Files 189 7 -182
Lines 17570 676 -16894
Branches 11592 357 -11235
==========================================
- Hits 6287 247 -6040
+ Misses 994 134 -860
+ Partials 10289 295 -9994
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @christophfroehlich? |
// TODO(anyone): should the controller even allow calling update() when it is not active? | ||
// update loop receives a new msg and updates accordingly | ||
updateController(rclcpp::Duration::from_seconds(0.25)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be clearly removed. This is something that it doesn't happen in the real world using CM - so we should not test it at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
// wait so controller process the third point when reactivated | ||
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(3000)); | ||
// TODO(anyone) test copied from ROS 1: it fails now! | ||
// should the old trajectory really be processed after reactivation? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, I think after reactivation, we should remove the trajectory that was commanded. It is basically “a reset”
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
* Fix time sources and wrong checks in tests * Use time from update-method instead of node clock * Readd test of last command in test_goal_tolerances_fail --------- Co-authored-by: Bence Magyar <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 2e0da5d)
* Reject receiving trajectory of last velocity point is non-zero * Update docs * Add tests * Change to parameterized test * Rename parameter * not true -> false --------- Co-authored-by: Bence Magyar <[email protected]>
This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @christophfroehlich? |
no, 558 is standalone now. there will be some general changes to the tests, which are the basis for tests of the other open PRs. I could extract them from 558 if it still needs more discussion, and target that to jtc-features but also onto master |
This a summary PR for the
jtc_features
branch, where individual PRs shall be tested together before merging into masterIndependent of other PRs (order of merge is not relevant)
Completed:
These should fix (amongst others)