if set goal from A to B, navigate will auto stop and robot not arrive expect point

[rafaelhuang-intel]

Bug report

I meet problem that if set goal from A to B, navigate will auto stop and robot not arrive expect point, but I can set goal again and robot workable except hit the post or wall, this issue meet rate ~30% ~ 40%, so do you meet same problem?

Required Info:

• Operating System:
  • Ubuntu 18.04
• Installation type:
  • source
• Version or commit hash:
  • dashing-devel 43f8e72
• DDS implementation:
• Client library (if applicable):

Steps to reproduce issue

Add gazebo and turtlebot module to source 

1.gazebo --verbose -s libgazebo_ros_init.so /home/intel/robot_devkit/rdk_ws/Turtlebot3_ws/src/turtlebot3/turtlebot3_simulations/turtlebot3_gazebo/worlds/turtlebot3_worlds/waffle.model

2.ros2 launch turtlebot3_bringup turtlebot3_state_publisher.launch.py use_sim_time:=True

3.ros2 launch nav2_bringup nav2_bringup_launch.py use_sim_time:=True autostart:=True map:=/home/intel/robot_devkit/rdk_ws/Turtlebot3_ws/src/navigation2/navigation2/nav2_bringup/launch/turtlebot3_world.yaml

4. ros2 run rviz2 rviz2 -d $(ros2 pkg prefix nav2_bringup)/share/nav2_bringup/launch/nav2_default_view.rviz

5. press start button on Rviz
6. set initial pose
7. set goal from A to B
8. Check robot status in Rviz & Gazebo

Expected behavior

if set goal from A to B, robot arrive expect point

Actual behavior

if set goal from A to B, navigate will auto stop and robot not arrive expect point

Additional information

---

Feature request

Feature description

Implementation considerations

[crdelsey]

I meet problem that if set goal from A to B, navigate will auto stop

Does the error_message_log.txt that you attached to #925 also apply to this problem? If so, I think #917 will fix it.

[mlherd]

@rafaelhuang-intel
I have run so many tests, but still I am not able to regenerate this issue. Do you still have this problem?

[rafaelhuang-intel]

@mlherd

I have tried Ros2 core 0614 + Navigation2 / Dashing-devel (016df29), this issue still can reproduced.

attached log and screen capture:

bug_926.txt

or you can link here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_qkBAgfL-kzEUWiwhM2MakOmlB2z8SRQ/view?usp=sharing) to get video.

[mlherd]

@rafaelhuang-intel
Thanks for the video and the log file. I will investigate this issue.

[crdelsey]

#936 is a possible workaround for this, I think. Looks like the robot is just getting too close to obstacles in the video

[SteveMacenski]

An aside but something to bring up: collectively, a lot of time has been spent on DWB and it doesnt seem that anyone is happy with it. I propose we adapt it in the short term but talk about what it might look like to remove it entirely from support. MPC is a very popular technique for a reason and should be somewhat simple to generalize across different robot base types.

The DRL work is interesting to @mhpanah and me but I recognize that even if I make it work to a degree I am happy with, its research code that wouldn't find its way to prime time for quite awhile until the RL community starts leveling out.

Thoughts?

[crdelsey]

I fully agree. I wanted to get the DWA/B algorithm approach to match the quality achieved in ROS 1 before spending time to find a better algorithm. There's no reason it shouldn't work as well or better than DWA/base_local_planner in ROS 1.

If we can get a local planner interface defined like you mentioned in some other issue, that would be a good point to get all the ROS2 changes to DWB pushed back to @DLu's repo. Then navigation2 could just provide the core that DWB, TEB, MPC and others use.

[bpwilcox]

@crdelsey Highly in favor of such a local planner interface!

[SteveMacenski]

Ticket here #943

Easier to make these changes now before trying to port multiple local or global planners. My recommendation would be to stop porting TEB until we have defined something unless someone actually needs it

[bpwilcox]

Ticket here #943

Easier to make these changes now before trying to port multiple local or global planners. My recommendation would be to stop porting TEB until we have defined something unless someone actually needs it

@yathartha3 has been looking into the port of TEB. Perhaps he can also look into this.

[orduno]

If the changes are significant, I suggest we take some time to discuss the design and clarify the interface, integration components (plugins, adaptors, ROS wrapper), rethink role of a local planner (pure path following & collision avoidance?), and interaction with global planning (MPC can do both tasks) and set the stage for further work on enabling multi-robot.

[yathartha3]

I submitted a PR #1045 regarding issue #943 .
This has the local planner interface and follow path action interface. It works with my turtlebot3 in simulation, however some more testing might be necessary.

[mlherd]

I have been testing Navigation2 (Dashing) with a real robot (Turtlebot 3). I almost never see the robot hitting obstacles or getting too close to them.

@rafaelhuang-intel Do you still have this problem?

[rafaelhuang-intel]

@mlherd

I tested Navigation2 (Dashing) with a real robot (Turtlebot 3) & simulate by e-manual (http://emanual.robotis.com/docs/en/platform/turtlebot3/ros2/#ros2), I almost never see this issue, so I will close it.

BTW, I see navigation 2 launch step not match dashing release yet(https://github.com/ros-planning/navigation2/tree/master/nav2_bringup), so do you have any plan to update this one?