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

[cob_twist_controller] refactor constraints/GPM code #152

Open
6 tasks
fmessmer opened this issue Apr 6, 2017 · 4 comments
Open
6 tasks

[cob_twist_controller] refactor constraints/GPM code #152

fmessmer opened this issue Apr 6, 2017 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@fmessmer
Copy link
Contributor

fmessmer commented Apr 6, 2017

  • remove priority template: <typename PRIO = uint32_t> @ipa-fxm-cm
  • separate and clearly name constraint builder/factory from actual constraints
  • use *.cpp and create library instead of *_impl.h
  • extract abstract GPM solver (i.e. just GPM formular) from actual GPM implementation (i.e. sum over constraint list)
  • allow to use constraints with/without prediction, toggleable via parameter (could help with [cob_twist_controller] CollisionAvoidance constraint does not work with KinematicExtensions #64)

  • optional: remove dynamic reconfigurability for solver types @ipa-fxm-cm

@fmessmer FYI

@fmessmer fmessmer changed the title [cob_twist_controller] refactor constraints code [cob_twist_controller] refactor constraints/GPM code Apr 6, 2017
@fmessmer
Copy link
Contributor Author

fmessmer commented Apr 7, 2017

@ipa-fxm-cm
I think we should keep the dynamic reconfigurability for the time being...so could you please focus on "remove priority template" first?

@bbrito
Copy link
Contributor

bbrito commented Apr 7, 2017

I agree. At the moment for me at least dynamic reconfigure is really useful. But once we finish all this solvers and make them stable we can start removing it.

@fmessmer
Copy link
Contributor Author

fmessmer commented Apr 7, 2017

In https://github.com/ipa320/cob_control/pull/126 we started to debug #125, but did not pursue this any further....thus it has been closed unmerged...

@fmessmer
Copy link
Contributor Author

fmessmer commented Apr 13, 2017

getting rid of the priority template is not that easy....I started it in my branch, but I'm not able to compile it yet...

Problem is:
When trying to get rid of the priority template, the whole PriorityBase class actually is obsolete and could be removed leaving ConstraintBase as the top abstract class for constraints...
However, I then ran into issues with a templated typedef for ConstraintBase_t which is used all over the place...and I couldn't resolve it yet...

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants