fix for kinematic constraints parsing

[jrgnicho]

Description

Minor change to properly parse the constraints parameter loaded from a yaml file. As described in the kinematic_constraints::constructConstraints function the yaml file needs to have the following structure:

 name: constraint_name
 constraint_ids: [constraint_1, constraint_2]
 constraints:
   constraint_1:
     type: orientation
     frame_id: world
     link_name: tool0
     orientation: [0, 0, 0]  # [r, p, y]
     tolerances: [0.01, 0.01, 3.15]
     weight: 1.0
   constraint_2:
     type: position
     frame_id: base_link
     link_name: tool0
     target_offset: [0.1, 0.1, 0.1]  # [x, y, z]
     region:
       x: [0.1, 0.4]  # [min, max]
       y: [0.2, 0.3]
       z: [0.1, 0.6]
     weight: 1.0

Prior to this change this yaml structure fails to load.

Checklist

• [ x] Required by CI: Code is auto formatted using clang-format
• [ N/A] Extend the tutorials / documentation reference
• [ N/A] Document API changes relevant to the user in the MIGRATION.md notes
• [ N/A] Create tests, which fail without this PR reference
• [ N/A] Include a screenshot if changing a GUI
• [ x] While waiting for someone to review your request, please help review another open pull request to support the maintainers

[mergify]

Please target the main branch for development, we will backport the changes to humble for you if approved and if they don't break API.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 59.29% and project coverage change: +0.46 🎉

Comparison is base (c9a9e40) 50.50% compared to head (725b93d) 50.95%.

❗ Current head 725b93d differs from pull request most recent head 607a44d. Consider uploading reports for the commit 607a44d to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2267      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   50.50%   50.95%   +0.46%     
==========================================
  Files         386      382       -4     
  Lines       31732    31891     +159     
==========================================
+ Hits        16022    16248     +226     
+ Misses      15710    15643      -67     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...n/allvalid/collision_detector_allocator_allvalid.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../collision_detection/test_collision_common_panda.h	98.73% <ø> (ø)
...it/collision_detection/test_collision_common_pr2.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
..._core/collision_detection/src/collision_common.cpp	50.00% <ø> (+10.00%)	⬆️
...t_core/collision_detection/src/collision_tools.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ction_bullet/collision_detector_allocator_bullet.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...src/bullet_integration/bullet_cast_bvh_manager.cpp	52.86% <ø> (ø)
...bullet_integration/bullet_discrete_bvh_manager.cpp	50.00% <ø> (ø)
...ion_bullet/src/bullet_integration/bullet_utils.cpp	64.77% <ø> (+0.12%)	⬆️
.../src/bullet_integration/contact_checker_common.cpp	84.73% <ø> (ø)
... and 99 more

... and 104 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[sea-bass]

I've traced down all the dots and parameter structure and this LGTM.

However, two things:

1. Could you rebase and retarget this to the main branch so the fix goes there, and then I can mark this PR for humble backporting?
2. I'm actually not a maintainer, so we'll still need other approvals :)

[sjahr]

Looks good, thanks for the fix! If you re-target it at main, we can easily backport it by just adding and additional tag

[mergify]

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @jrgnicho?

[jrgnicho]

Looks good, thanks for the fix! If you re-target it at main, we can easily backport it by just adding and additional tag

OK, I can do that. For future PR's targeting a branch other than main how should I proceed?

[jrgnicho]

Just targeted the change to the main branch

[sea-bass]

OK, I can do that. For future PR's targeting a branch other than main how should I proceed?

I think what you just did is perfect: Put up PR to main, add the backport-humble label, and that should do it :)

The one exception would be if the PR in question is a bug fix that doesn't make sense on main (it's been fixed/refactored, etc.) in which case targeting the non-main branch directly is OK.