RSDK-6631 - Change RC card to use MoveOnMap typescript SDK wrapper

[nicksanford]

Ticket

• Change SLAM RC Card to call motion.MoveOnMap through typescript SDK wrapper rather than protobuf generated client
• This implements the change recommended by @ethanlook in this PR: RSDK-6132 - [RC] [Breaking] Change the SLAM RC card to call motion.MoveOnMapNew rather than motion.MoveOnMap #3450 (comment)

[nicksanford]

bye bye boilerplate 👋

[micheal-parks]

oo la la

[nicksanford]

This is failing a lint error despite working in the browser:
https://github.com/viamrobotics/rdk/actions/runs/7873963113/job/21482471651?pr=3574#step:5:2176

Also, the typescript SDK sets this value in the MotionConfiguration type: https://github.com/viamrobotics/viam-typescript-sdk/blob/main/src/services/motion/types.ts#L88

Do I need to do something in the typescript SDK to placate the type checker?

@micheal-parks @ethanlook

[micheal-parks]

From a quick glance it appears that those addtional props (obstacleDetectorsList, positionPollingFrequencyHz) are not marked as optional and should be? Something like:

interface MoveOnMapOptions {
  planDeviationM: number // if required
  obstacleDetectorsList?: number
  positionPollingFrequencyHz?: number
  ...
}

[nicksanford]

1. I don't see the text string MoveOnMapOptions in the typescript SDK nor in the RC web app
2. The type in question is

import pb from '../../gen/service/motion/v1/motion_pb';
...
export type MotionConfiguration = pb.MotionConfiguration.AsObject;

https://github.com/viamrobotics/viam-typescript-sdk/blob/main/src/services/motion/types.ts#L9

That object (at least in vanilla js) knows about planDeviationM: https://github.com/viamrobotics/api/blob/main/gen/js/service/motion/v1/motion_pb.js#L1956 How do I get typescript to believe that that field is a member of the MotionConfiguration type?

[ethanlookpotts]

Really appreciate you coming back to do the cleanup!

[ethanlookpotts]

[minor stuff] Could we change this to be a little more defensive? In general, we should avoid using the assertion operator ! (in App we have linters against this) because it's unsafe. Maybe we could use the nullish coalescing operator ?? to provide a reasonable default? Or return and display an error?