Skip to content
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

Added function to enumerate all possible joint angles per IK solution #305

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: kinetic-devel
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

a-price
Copy link

@a-price a-price commented Jul 20, 2017

As discussed in #300, there may be many possible joint configurations for a single kinematic IK solution. This patch recursively adds joints satisfying q[i][j] + 2pi and the joint limits.

Addresses #300, and possibly #276 and #252

@maxgittelman
Copy link

this fork fixes a ton of issue, please take a look

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

This should be reviewed together with #239 and #316.

I won't do that before ROSCon however, and in any case would like some additional eyes on this.

@a-price
Copy link
Author

a-price commented Sep 13, 2017

As mentioned in #316, this fix leaves quite a few solutions to sort through. When I wrote this, I was trying to get something working that would give the correct answer with a minimum of changes to the existing code. I think a better solution would be to pass the weights and seed state into the recursion, and perform a branch-and-bound-esque pruning of the solution tree as it's built. It might also be possible to sort each joint solution individually, but we'd have to be careful to avoid the error in the original implementation. Thoughts?

@a-price
Copy link
Author

a-price commented Sep 13, 2017

Also, is kinetic-devel the correct branch to push to? The Travis CI error seemed to be unhappy with package installation.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

Tagging this PR with wrid18 as this is a PR that would be nice to review.

#239 and #316 should be taken into account / considered as well.

@mxgrey
Copy link

mxgrey commented Jul 11, 2018

I suggest closing this PR in favor of #358 which combines this one with #239 and resolves the conflicts between them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants