-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Add RobotModeDataMsg #395
Add RobotModeDataMsg #395
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are some additional fields in the Robot Mode Data, according to the overview of the client interfaces.
In particular, I'm interested in the speed fraction/scaling value (name is different depending on version). I'm going to guess that value indicates the position of the slider in PolyScope, but I haven't been able to check this. If that is the case, it could be interesting to add it since application logic may use that to throttle down the commands based on its value.
Any reason for not having included it in the message?
The historical reason is that I merged the fields from this PR and didn't want to do unnecessary development that no one might have a need for. I have also had issues with the driver when the slider is not at 100% (e.g. robots would overshoot and not stop at the target position), so adding more fields may open up more construction sites for little benefit. I suspect that in the case you describe, users will either use the URscript commands or send a slower trajectory through ROS. A practical reason is that the fields that this PR publishes are common to all UR firmware versions, so there is no need to do additional checks. Either way, new fields can be added afterwards if the need arises. |
I think the slider being not at 100% is a common source of errors, indeed. Anyways, it may make more sense to tackle that problem by adding a check at the driver level and displaying a warning, rather than publishing the value. I'm fine merging this as it is. @gavanderhoorn, @ipa-nhg? |
Sorry for dismissing your review @miguelprada, but I felt the additional comment in the |
👍 Not sure why this cannot be merged as is. I'll merge |
Thanks @felixvd! |
Thanks for the quick action after my late reply! |
* Add RobotModeDataMsg * msg: clarify that not all fields from RobotMode are published
* Add RobotModeDataMsg * msg: clarify that not all fields from RobotMode are published
* Add RobotModeDataMsg * msg: clarify that not all fields from RobotMode are published
See ros-industrial/ur_modern_driver#247