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

Bugfix in Yarp iRobotControl implementation #118

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 24, 2020

Conversation

GiulioRomualdi
Copy link
Member

@GiulioRomualdi GiulioRomualdi commented Sep 24, 2020

This PR fixes two bugs in the yarp implementation of the iRobotControl class.

Comment on lines 134 to 135
constexpr unsigned maxIter = 100;
constexpr unsigned timeout = 500;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it worth putting them as part of the initialization parameters?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can have default values and the user can change them. Do you agree?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Absolutely

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done in 78738d2

Copy link
Collaborator

@prashanthr05 prashanthr05 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approved considering the changes suggested by @S-Dafarra !

@GiulioRomualdi
Copy link
Member Author

Waiting for @S-Dafarra approval before merging

ok = ok && ptr->getParameter("positioning_tolerance", m_pimpl->positioningTolerance);
// optional parameters
int temp = 0;
if (ptr->getParameter("reading_timeout", temp))
Copy link
Member

@S-Dafarra S-Dafarra Sep 24, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The problem with this is that if the reading_timeout field is missing, it will always throw an error. We may need to add a "quiet" mode for optional parameters. Anyways, this goes outside the scope of this PR.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The problem with this is that if the reading_timeout field is missing, it will always throw an error. We may need to add a "quiet" mode for optional parameters. Anyways, this goes outside the scope of this PR.

Yes, this is really annoying. I opened an issue for that: #120

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.

Understand why the getControlModes sometimes fails
3 participants