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

Synchronized group switch #150

Merged

Conversation

mathias-luedtke
Copy link
Member

Stops group joints before switch, switches modes and does not forward commands until doSwitch was called.
closes #132

Should be compatible to ros-controls/ros_control#209

Needs to be tested on multi-joint HW.

@mathias-luedtke
Copy link
Member Author

Tested with Elmo (Gold and SimplIQ) and Schunk.

mathias-luedtke added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2016
@mathias-luedtke mathias-luedtke merged commit f1b6ab4 into ros-industrial:indigo-devel Feb 1, 2016
@mathias-luedtke mathias-luedtke mentioned this pull request Feb 1, 2016
@mathias-luedtke mathias-luedtke deleted the groupswitch branch February 2, 2016 16:46
@shaun-edwards
Copy link
Member

@ipa-mdl, the ROS-I policy is to have all PRs reviewed by at least one other developer. This ensures that more than one person understands the ongoing development. It also helps both reviewers and committers grow in the ability.

@mathias-luedtke
Copy link
Member Author

@shaun-edwards: I would really appreciate review and feedback, but for now I seem to be the only ros_canopen developer. Should other ROS-I developers review it?

This PR has been open for more than 3 months.
I took this time to test it with various hardware platforms and set-ups.
It is required for jade and critical for indigo, since ros_canopen would have stopped working properly with the next ros_control release.
After the new release a rebased #153 can be merged as well.

@shaun-edwards
Copy link
Member

In order to get a review, you will have to tag someone in the PR (like @shaun-edwards). For now, I would recommend tagging @ipa-mirb (he needs to start participating in code review anyway). The goal would be to have a ready replacement/alternative source to take off maintenance if needed.

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.

2 participants