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

added possibility to optionally optimize time during compute cartesian path ‎️‍🔥 #2874

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: humble
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Duke194
Copy link

@Duke194 Duke194 commented Jun 19, 2024

Description

Added the ability to opt out of time optimization during Cartesian path computation.

This change requires a corresponding update in moveit/moveit_msgs#179, which is related to this PR.

This feature is necessary for our project to plan trajectories with multiple waypoints and turning points. We have tested the planning with and without this feature. Without this feature, time optimization removes some essential points, resulting in incorrect trajectories. With this feature enabled, the trajectory is planned correctly without any issues.

@Duke194
Copy link
Author

Duke194 commented Jun 25, 2024

Ping.
Could someone please review/merge this?

@Duke194
Copy link
Author

Duke194 commented Jul 5, 2024

Someone there ? ping

@Duke194 Duke194 changed the title added possibility to optionally optimize time during compute cartesian path added possibility to optionally optimize time during compute cartesian path ‎️‍🔥 Jul 5, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@sjahr sjahr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes sense to me, thanks! Rather than calling it time_optimize, I'd propose calling the option compute_time_stamps or generate_trajectory to highlight that if this option is false, the output of the capability is just a path an not a trajectory. What do you think?

time_param.computeTimeStamps(rt, 1.0);
if (req->time_optimize)
{
auto orig_point_count = rt.getWayPointCount();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
auto orig_point_count = rt.getWayPointCount();
const auto orig_point_count = rt.getWayPointCount();

auto orig_point_count = rt.getWayPointCount();
trajectory_processing::TimeOptimalTrajectoryGeneration time_param;
time_param.computeTimeStamps(rt, 1.0);
RCLCPP_INFO(LOGGER, "Optimized trajectory with %u points to %u points", (unsigned int)orig_point_count,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
RCLCPP_INFO(LOGGER, "Optimized trajectory with %u points to %u points", (unsigned int)orig_point_count,
RCLCPP_DEBUG(LOGGER, "Optimized trajectory with %u points to %u points", (unsigned int)orig_point_count,

@rhaschke
Copy link
Contributor

rhaschke commented Jul 5, 2024

Instead of using a simple boolean flag, did you considered to specify the time parameterization plugin via a string?
This would allow to change the time parameterization method as well as disable time parameterization (if empty).

@Duke194
Copy link
Author

Duke194 commented Jul 8, 2024

This makes sense to me, thanks! Rather than calling it time_optimize, I'd propose calling the option compute_time_stamps or generate_trajectory to highlight that if this option is false, the output of the capability is just a path an not a trajectory. What do you think?

I see your point. But I think we should then go for generate_trajectory, I think it fits best.

@Duke194
Copy link
Author

Duke194 commented Jul 8, 2024

Instead of using a simple boolean flag, did you considered to specify the time parameterization plugin via a string? This would allow to change the time parameterization method as well as disable time parameterization (if empty).

I didn't considered that because for our specific use case it is sufficient to get a path out of this capability. We do the time optimization aka. trajectory generation afterwards ourselves. I do not know if the parametrization needs to be configurable. Probably depends on the use case.

@sjahr
Copy link
Contributor

sjahr commented Jul 9, 2024

@Duke194 Just realized your targeting the humble branch with your PR. Do you mind changing it to main? We'll backport it to humble with a github bot afterwards immediately. I think this is ready to be merged once you addressed my review

@rhaschke
Copy link
Contributor

rhaschke commented Jul 9, 2024

I suggest implementing the more generic selection of time parameterization suggested in #2874 (comment).

@Duke194
Copy link
Author

Duke194 commented Jul 9, 2024

@Duke194 Just realized your targeting the humble branch with your PR. Do you mind changing it to main? We'll backport it to humble with a github bot afterwards immediately. I think this is ready to be merged once you addressed my review

I'll do it on main this week.

Copy link

This PR is stale because it has been open for 45 days with no activity. Please tag a maintainer for help on completing this PR, or close it if you think it has become obsolete.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Inactive issues and PRs are marked as stale and may be closed automatically. label Aug 23, 2024
Copy link

mergify bot commented Dec 18, 2024

Please target the main branch for development, we will backport the changes to humble for you if approved and if they don't break API.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale Inactive issues and PRs are marked as stale and may be closed automatically. label Dec 18, 2024
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