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

regression in FixStartStateCollision adapter #2849

Open
rhaschke opened this issue May 24, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

regression in FixStartStateCollision adapter #2849

rhaschke opened this issue May 24, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working persistent Allows issues to remain open without automatic stalling and closing.

Comments

@rhaschke
Copy link
Contributor

This reports issues observed with the FixStartStateCollision adapter in moveit/moveit_task_constructor#573 (comment):

  • The adapter seems to interpolate between an in-collision start state and the found non-collision state. However, these states are usually in collision too, resulting in the plan validation to fail.
    MoveIt1 doesn't behave like that, it jumps to the collision-free state directly (and ignores the invalid start state during validation).
  • If the adapter fails to find a collision-free state, it erroneously reports SUCCESS as its message.
@rhaschke rhaschke added the bug Something isn't working label May 24, 2024
@sjahr
Copy link
Contributor

sjahr commented May 24, 2024

Thanks for reporting this issue! At a first glance I don't see any regression between moveit1 and moveit2 in the FixStartStateCollision adapter on the Humble branch. Do you see anything I am missing?

In main I replaced the FixStartState adapter in #2429 with a simple CheckStartStateCollision adapter. My rationale is that an adapter that introduces small jumps is un-intuitive and might lead to undesired behavior, especially given that is was used almost everywhere as a default. I think the decision about what to do when the start state is in collision should be made in a higher level logic than the planning pipeline.

We refactored the whole planning pipeline in moveit2 recently.

@rhaschke
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do you see anything I am missing?

I see exactly the regression I described: In MoveIt1 it works, it MoveIt2 it fails as described.
If there are no code changes in the adapter itself, which would explain the interpolation to the new state, maybe time parameterization applies (now) to the whole trajectory (including both, the initial state and the added no-collision waypoint) and adds more waypoints in between? Maybe such kind of interpolation was added there?
I don't have the time to dig into this issue and I don't have an overview of changes applied to MoveIt2. That's why I just reported the issue.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 8, 2024

This issue is being labeled as stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. It will be automatically closed after another 45 days without follow-ups.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Inactive issues and PRs are marked as stale and may be closed automatically. label Jul 8, 2024
@rhaschke rhaschke removed the stale Inactive issues and PRs are marked as stale and may be closed automatically. label Jul 8, 2024
Copy link

This issue is being labeled as stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. It will be automatically closed after another 45 days without follow-ups.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Inactive issues and PRs are marked as stale and may be closed automatically. label Sep 13, 2024
Copy link

This issue was closed because it has been stalled for 45 days with no activity.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Oct 28, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to ✅ Done in MoveIt Oct 28, 2024
@sea-bass sea-bass reopened this Nov 30, 2024
@sea-bass sea-bass added persistent Allows issues to remain open without automatic stalling and closing. and removed stale Inactive issues and PRs are marked as stale and may be closed automatically. labels Nov 30, 2024
@mikeferguson
Copy link
Contributor

#3143 fixes the second issue (erroneous "success" reported).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working persistent Allows issues to remain open without automatic stalling and closing.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants