Use time argument on update function instead of node time#296
Use time argument on update function instead of node time#296destogl merged 2 commits intoros-controls:masterfrom
Conversation
|
@bmagyar @erickisos @malapatiravi , I'll look to set some time aside this weekend to start taking a look at these changes. Thanks @erickisos for opening this pull-request. |
|
Let me check if is finished then, because I saw something about a bad comparison between vars |
|
Hi @erickisos, I am still getting up to speed with the codebase and the One note I came across was what looks like a typo in some of the variable names for instance here should read Also it looks like certain tests/checks are currently failing as you mentioned above. Once I get up to speed I can take a look at these also. Have a great start to the new week and hopefully we can get these changes merged by the end of the upcoming week. |
|
The error you see on the CI has to do with the time we use in the tests. The different time source error appears when you are trying ot mix ROS time with system time or simulated time. Probably we don't use the right one to compare values in the tests. |
malapatiravi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks good to me. someone else should approve.
|
@bmagyar should we open a separate issue to review the CI tests? I haven't completely finished my review but in order to not slow things down (and since a maintainer already approved this pr) I will also approve this pr. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The pull request successfully uses the time argument within update function where node time was previously used.
Some CI tests cases are failing (see here) and there appears to be a minor typo in variable naming within joint_trajectory_controller.cpp script (see here). I will look to follow up on these points in subsequent issues.
Approving for now.
|
Just in case, the |
|
Ignore the RHEL issue, focus on this instead: |
|
Thanks @bmagyar let me check |
destogl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking good thanks!
P.S. Thanks for the typo correction. Probably have introduced it 😄
Apologies I had exams so was away for a while, great to see this merged. Also happy to go through the codebase when I have the chance to, hopefully I'll be able to help out further at some point in the future when I'm more familiar with the codebase. |
Closes #290