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

MoveGroup Goal request missing attribute #55

Closed
alek5k opened this issue Mar 28, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed

MoveGroup Goal request missing attribute #55

alek5k opened this issue Mar 28, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@alek5k
Copy link

alek5k commented Mar 28, 2024

Hi there,

Thanks for the library - found it so much easier than trying to get the MoveIt API working. I came across a bug (?) which seems to happen during initialization. The function __init_move_action_goal creates a request with a cartesian speed parameter. This parameter is missing in my request. Syntax highlighting seems to not find it either (see picture below)

image

I am using ROS Iron.

I've commented out that line and the code works fine (however I have not tested robot movements - just using this library to attach collision objects).

@AndrejOrsula
Copy link
Owner

Hello @alek5k. Yes, this change in Iron was noted via #49.

#56 should address it once it gets merged in.

@alek5k
Copy link
Author

alek5k commented Apr 3, 2024

Hi @AndrejOrsula

Ah great, I missed that one. Should I use the devel branch for iron? I noticed there was an iron_compatibility branch but seems to have been deleted now.

Thanks again for the library, do you plan on maintaining it long term? I found it much easier than using the official MoveIt API - no need to fiddle with robot definitions, which was proving extremely difficult with a UR10.

@AndrejOrsula
Copy link
Owner

Hello @alek5k,

Should I use the devel branch for iron?

Yes, please try using the devel branch. I have not tested it on iron, so it would be nice to get someone's confirmation before it gets merged into the default branch.

I noticed there was an iron_compatibility branch but seems to have been deleted now.

The commits of the iron_compatibility branch were merged into the devel branch via #56, so there is no need for it anymore.

do you plan on maintaining it long term?

For now, I will continue to review & merge PRs and answer issues. However, I do not actively use pymoveit2 anymore, so I won't actively develop new features or make any extensive modifications myself. It is used in some projects, so maintaining backwards-compatibility in a single branch for multiple distributions would be ideal.

I still haven't tried the official MoveIt 2 Python bindings because I work on other things, but it is what I generally recommend people try first if they can.

@alek5k
Copy link
Author

alek5k commented Apr 5, 2024

Thanks @AndrejOrsula I will use the devel branch!

I think your library here fills the purpose that moveit_commander did in ROS1. I wonder if it's possible to ask the ROS guys to merge it into ROS officially? Maybe that way others can actively develop it if they prefer to use the action interface instead of the API? I'm not sure what the pros/cons are though.

Btw I am starting a PhD focusing on DRL-based robotic grasping and I noticed your other repo looking at this problem. Perhaps our paths may intersect again in future :)

@alek5k alek5k closed this as completed Apr 5, 2024
@AndrejOrsula
Copy link
Owner

I wonder if it's possible to ask the ROS guys to merge it into ROS officially? Maybe that way others can actively develop it if they prefer to use the action interface instead of the API?

I am not sure. I have not discussed this with any of the MoveIt maintainers, but it might cause additional confusion for end users if multiple "official" libraries serve a very similar purpose. If the motive is to have a simpler installation process, then supporting something like this shouldn't be too difficult.

pip install pymoveit2 @ git+https://github.com/AndrejOrsula/pymoveit2.git

Btw I am starting a PhD focusing on DRL-based robotic grasping and I noticed your other repo looking at this problem. Perhaps our paths may intersect again in future :)

That's great! Yeah, it might happen. 🙂 Good luck with shaping your research topic!

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

2 participants