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

Few issues in MoveIT interfacing #86

Closed
belalhmedan90 opened this issue Feb 28, 2025 · 3 comments
Closed

Few issues in MoveIT interfacing #86

belalhmedan90 opened this issue Feb 28, 2025 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@belalhmedan90
Copy link
Contributor

belalhmedan90 commented Feb 28, 2025

Hi, thanks for the great effort, I noticed multiple issues in the implementation, and I want to point them out:

  1. rate.sleep() on some machines sleeps forever, it might be better to change it to rclpy.spin_once(self._node, timeout_sec=1.0)
  2. Consider waiting for service before checking availability (for each service): self.__service_client.wait_for_service(timeout_sec=3.0).
  3. Starting state is None, I have to tweak the code as:
        # Define starting state for the plan (default to the current state)
        while(start_joint_state is None):
            self._node._logger.warn(message="Joint states are not avaliable yet!")
            if(self.__joint_state is not None):
                start_joint_state = self.__joint_state
                break
            else:
                rclpy.spin_once(self._node, timeout_sec=1.0)
        self._node._logger.info(message="Joint states are avaliable now")

If you please consider these changes it might enhance the API imo, thanks.

@AndrejOrsula
Copy link
Owner

Hi @belalhmedan90, thank you very much for opening this issue!

Would you be willing to contribute a PR that addresses these changes?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.

@AndrejOrsula AndrejOrsula added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 1, 2025
@belalhmedan90
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @belalhmedan90, thank you very much for opening this issue!

Would you be willing to contribute a PR that addresses these changes? Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sure, please see PR #87

@AndrejOrsula
Copy link
Owner

#87 is now merged

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants