@doisyg FYI - would this be of interest? See the video

Absolutely ! @decwest, we were discussing internally your DWPP repo (at Dexory) and I am super happy that you guys are working toward a nav2 integration.
Having linear acceleration constraints would be an immediate win for us.
Side note: could be a separate PR, but it would be even better to split the accel constraints between max_linear_accel and max_linear_decel. And in doing so, beware of bi-directionality, e.g. #3529
cc @kaichie @tonynajjar

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 99.25373% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

Let me know when you want me to take a look again after the review comments are addressed! Only things at a glance:

  const double A_MAX = params_->max_linear_accel;       // A_MAX
  const double V_MAX = params_->desired_linear_vel;     // V_MAX
  const double AW_MAX = params_->max_angular_accel;     // AW_MAX
  const double W_MAX = params_->desired_angular_vel;    // W_MAX
  const double DT = control_duration_;         // DT

  const double V_MIN = -V_MAX;
  const double W_MIN = -W_MAX;

Your very large block of code may be more concise as

// Lambda approach
auto check = [&](double v, double w) {
  if (v >= dw_vmin && v <= dw_vmax && w >= dw_wmin && w <= dw_wmax && v > best_v) {
    best_v = v; best_w = w;
  }
};
check(dw_vmin, k * dw_vmin);
check(dw_vmax, k * dw_vmax);
check(dw_wmin / k, dw_wmin);
check(dw_wmax / k, dw_wmax);

or

std::pair<double, double> candidates[] = {
  {dw_vmin, k * dw_vmin},
  {dw_vmax, k * dw_vmax},
  {dw_wmin / k, dw_wmin},
  {dw_wmax / k, dw_wmax}
};

for (auto [v, w] : candidates) {
  if (v >= dw_vmin && v <= dw_vmax && w >= dw_wmin && w <= dw_wmax && v > best_v) {
    best_v = v; best_w = w;
  }
}

I'd suggest reviewing your code a bit for how it can be as concise and self-descriptive as possible
Try to rename these variables to be more inline with the rest of the codebase please to make this function more readable.

@SteveMacenski
Thank you for reviewing again, and sorry for the delay in my response.
I’ll address all of your comments one by one and will mention you once everything has been updated.
I’ll also work on improving the code readability.

@decwest, your PR has failed to build. Please check CI outputs and resolve issues.
You may need to rebase or pull in main due to API changes (or your contribution genuinely fails).

Let me know when I should take a look again! Note that you should probably rebase and/or pull in main so that CI can pass :-)

@decwest, your PR has failed to build. Please check CI outputs and resolve issues.
You may need to rebase or pull in main due to API changes (or your contribution genuinely fails).

@decwest, your PR has failed to build. Please check CI outputs and resolve issues.
You may need to rebase or pull in main due to API changes (or your contribution genuinely fails).

@SteveMacenski
I have finished addressing all of the comments, and I would appreciate it if you could take a look.
I have also updated the documentation, so I would be grateful if you could review that as well.
ros-navigation/docs.nav2.org#802

I have one question.
Currently, the code coverage of nav2_regulated_pure_pursuit_controller.cpp is below the required threshold.
However, I have written tests for each DWPP function, and the coverage of dynamic_window_pure_pursuit_functions.hpp is at 100 percent.
How should I address this?
Solved.

@SteveMacenski
I am currently writing a journal paper on DWPP. If possible, I would like to conduct real-world experiments using the code merged into the main branch to ensure validity.
Would it be possible for you to review this PR at your earliest convenience?
Once submitted, I plan to upload the paper to arXiv and add a link to it in the RPP README or documentation. I believe this paper will serve as a good reference demonstrating the performance of this Nav2 implementation.

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @decwest?

I was unable to fix the DCO issue.
I attempted an interactive rebase (git rebase -i) to add the missing sign-offs to past commits. However, after pushing, it seemed to include other merged commits as if I had authored them, which cluttered the commit log and the PR diff. I have reverted the branch to its original state for now.

git rebase HEAD~41 --signoff
git push --force-with-lease origin feature/implement_dwpp

Doesn't work? Maybe it would be best to get your work, squash it into a single commit that you sign off on and force push back? This is an important thing we need for contributors to verify that they have permission to contribute their work to the project.

Sorry for the delay, I'm not sure why this didn't come up in my notification tray.

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @decwest?

git rebase HEAD~41 --signoff
git push --force-with-lease origin feature/implement_dwpp

Doesn't work? Maybe it would be best to get your work, squash it into a single commit that you sign off on and force push back? This is an important thing we need for contributors to verify that they have permission to contribute their work to the project.

Sorry for the delay, I'm not sure why this didn't come up in my notification tray.

@SteveMacenski
Thank you as always for your careful review.
Regarding the DCO, if I rebase and force-push, the commits and the Files changed section become messy as they do now, but the DCO check does pass.
Would this be acceptable? I can still restore the branch to its original state since the history remains locally.

If that works for you, I will go ahead and resolve the current conflicts.
If not, an alternative would be to create a new PR and recommit only the changes from this PR with the proper sign-off...

Just to short cut this issue, maybe it would be best to create a new branch & PR in which you migrate your commits over to that, sign off on it, and open a new PR to get around this. I'm not 100% what situation your git setup is in and rather than coaching you through it remotely sometimes just saying "screw this" and starting from a clean, current main branch and applying your changes is faster.

@SteveMacenski
I’ve created a new PR with the same diff as this one:
#5783

I’ve addressed all of your comments except for the migration guide.
When you have time, I’d appreciate it if you could take a look.

OK will do! Closing this PR because the other supersedes