ros2_controllers
ros2_controllers copied to clipboard
Added tf_prefix to the left_wheel_names and right_wheel_names to solve Gazebo plugin issue.
The tf prefix is added to the odom_frame_id and the base_frame_id. However, it is not done to the left_wheel_names and right_wheel_names.
The differential drive controller is often used as a gazebo plugin like below.
<gazebo>
<plugin filename="libgazebo_ros2_control.so" name="gazebo_ros2_control">
<namespace>${robot_namespace}</namespace>
<robot_param>robot_description</robot_param>
<robot_param_node>robot_state_publisher</robot_param_node>
<parameters>package://robot_description/config/robot_control.yaml</parameters>
</plugin>
</gazebo>
Since this is defined inside a xacro, the Rewritten yaml cannot be used to add namespaces to joints. Adding the namespace in the cpp file bypasses this issue. In the PR, the convention is followed. That is, "robot_namespace/left_wheel_name". Please let me know if I need to change it in any other place. The modified changes solves my issue and seems to run correctly on the Gazebo simulator.
Please fix the issues reported by the "Format" stage by running pre-commit run --all
locally and adding the changes to the PR
Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 71.78%. Comparing base (
9f7e9e9
) to head (9078dd0
). Report is 29 commits behind head on master.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #831 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 47.71% 71.78% +24.06%
===========================================
Files 41 41
Lines 3871 3643 -228
Branches 1833 1786 -47
===========================================
+ Hits 1847 2615 +768
+ Misses 751 715 -36
+ Partials 1273 313 -960
Flag | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
unittests | 71.78% <100.00%> (+24.06%) |
:arrow_up: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
...iff_drive_controller/src/diff_drive_controller.cpp | 69.09% <100.00%> (+21.03%) |
:arrow_up: |
Hi @bmagyar ! After fixing the format issues, I synced my fork with the master since its been a while. I now have a build error in rolling binary build / binary (main). All the other checks seem to pass. is it ok?
Hi @bmagyar ! After fixing the format issues, I synced my fork with the master since its been a while. I now have a build error in rolling binary build / binary (main). All the other checks seem to pass. is it ok?
Rolling binary build on main fails because of an API break, which hasn't been synced yet. That's fine and unrelated to this PR.
Ah I see! Thanks @christophfroehlich :D