Multi-group support for MotoPlus motion driver #43
Conversation
Add support for multiple control groups. - Support for SDA robots, or multiple individual robots and/or external axes. - Add new command message for controlling up to 4 groups. - Add new position-feedback message to send all group data. Add compatibility for DX200 controller. Convert MotoPlusIDE projects into Visual Studio solution. - Maintained legacy compatibility for MPIDE. Improve I/O feedback signals. - Allocate additional signals for future expansion. - Add more cases where feedback signals are used. Improve error handling - Add additional text and I/O feedback in error cases
No change actual job; just to folder structure.
| @@ -94,10 +102,10 @@ typedef struct // ROS_MSG_ROBOT_STATUS = 13 | |||
| int in_motion; // Is currently executing a motion command: -1=Unknown, 1=True, 0=False | |||
| int mode; // Controller/Pendant mode: -1=Unknown, 1=Manual(TEACH), 2=Auto(PLAY) | |||
| int motion_possible; // Is the controller ready to receive motion: -1=Unknown, 1=ENABLED, 0=DISABLED | |||
| } SmBodyRobotStatus; | |||
| } __attribute__((__packed__)); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't seen this in a long time ;). Why was it needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This guarantees consistent structure alignment on all three supported robot controllers. The three different compilers apply padding slightly differently. During development, I found that at least one of these structs (don't remember which) behaved differently between the FS and DX. So, I went through and ensured everyone of them is packed without any extra padding between struct members.
|
@ted-miller, Thanks for the contribution. There are some changes that are being marked due to differences in spacing (tabs vs spaces). I can set the diff to ignore spacing, but the view is still messed up with some code running of the right hand side. Is this easy for you to fix/adjust. If so, can you do another commit (it will automatically get added to the PR). See other comments/questions inline. |
|
Can you point to a specific example of a file that is showing these white-space differences? I should be able to convert the tabs to spaces (even though it goes against every fiber of my being to not use tabs... that's almost as bad as putting the curly bracket on the same line as an IF statement) |
|
I just found some examples in Controller.h and Controller.c. However, I would argue that the tabs should stay. I put them there to fix some of the display issues in the MotoPlus environment (either Visual Studio or M+IDE). Since MotoPlus doesn't allow much flexibiilty with your choice of IDE's, I think it works out well. |
|
Tabs vs spaces....wars have been started over smaller disagreements. I agree with you. |
|
One additional question. Are you concerned that the IO calls could add latency to motion streaming (since they share the same communications channel)? This is more for my info. |
|
Yes. I have personally seen this become a problem when exchanging the amount of I/O that is typical for an industrial work-cell. |
|
+1, Waiting to merge until PR ros-industrial/industrial_core#82 is approved. |
|
@ted-miller, as requested by @shaun-edwards on my PR, please change the JOINT_TRAJ_PT_FULL_EX and JOINT_FEEDBACK_EX to the MOTOMAN range. In my opinion, the following values could be used, as you have already suggested in the past: ROS_MSG_MOTO_JOINT_TRAJ_PT_FULL_EX with a value of 2016. Thanks. |
|
@thiagodefreitas |
Multi-group support for MotoPlus motion driver
See changelog in ted-miller/motoman branch.