You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Just noticed this while analysing some Wireshark captures of simple message traffic between the currently released motion_streaming_interface and a controller (exact type of the controller has no impact on the occurrence of the problem).
From the capture:
ROS-Industrial SimpleMessage, Motoman Joint Trajectory Point Full Extended (0x7e0), 288 bytes, big-endian
Prefix
Packet Length: 284
Header
...
Communications Type: Service Request (2)
...
Body
...
Group 0
...
Valid Fields: 0x159e10f (Position, Time, Acceleration, Velocity)
.... ...1 = Time : Valid (1)
.... ..1. = Position : Valid (1)
.... .1.. = Velocity : Valid (1)
.... 1... = Acceleration : Valid (1)
Time: 1.08976
...
...
I'm not sure if this actually leads to any problems (that would depend on how the valid_fields field is actually assigned its value), but it violates the protocol specs in any case and should be fixed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Issue also does not seem to occur on single-group controllers (or at least: on ROS setups not configured to use the multi-group infrastructure in motoman_driver).
gavanderhoorn
changed the title
driver: unexpected values for 'valid_fields' field in simple message binary stream
driver: illegal values for 'valid_fields' field in simple message binary stream
Jul 21, 2016
Just noticed this while analysing some Wireshark captures of simple message traffic between the currently released
motion_streaming_interface
and a controller (exact type of the controller has no impact on the occurrence of the problem).From the capture:
Note the
0x159e10f
value for Valid Fields.Only the lower four bit positions in the
valid_fields
field of theJOINT_TRAJ_PT_FULL_EX
message type are defined, with all of the others reserved for future use (see Message Structures of the ROS-Industrial Simple Message Protocol - Defined Constants - Valid Fields).I'm not sure if this actually leads to any problems (that would depend on how the
valid_fields
field is actually assigned its value), but it violates the protocol specs in any case and should be fixed.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: