feat: add support for controlling non-xarm hw interfaces in xarm_combined_hw#255
Open
pedrofontanatf wants to merge 1 commit intoxArm-Developer:masterfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi everyone,
I’m not sure whether this is something you’d want to include in the repository (and I’m also not certain how common the issue we encountered is), but I wanted to share our experience.
Context
Our team has a control model that publishes commands using a
std_msgs/Float64MultiArray. When integrating the model with a Lite6, we ran into an issue: the model also controls additional hardware (simpler than the arm itself), and we wanted to manage everything through a single controller -- specifically aposition_controllers/JointGroupPositionController.Our plan was to use the xarm_combined_traj_controller node by passing the configuration for both hardware interfaces through the
robot_hardwareparameter.Issue
We encountered segmentation faults, which we traced to the lines highlighted in this PR. The root cause appears to be that our second RobotHW instance does not implement the
need_resetorwait_fbk_startmethods.As a workaround, we vendored the relevant code for both the XArmCombinedHW class and the associated node. However, we thought this might be a useful feature to include in the stable branch.