Port rdf_loader to ROS 2 #76
Conversation
|
Same as #62 (comment). Please consider these changes. |
| ros::NodeHandle nh("~"); | ||
| auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); | ||
| // TODO (anasarrak): Add the correct node_handle name | ||
| auto node = rclcpp::Node::make_shared("/"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a big TODO. What is our strategy for Nodes in MoveIt2? Should we always check that rclcpp has been initialized first? Seems like something we should do with intention.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: change the api for rdf_loader so that the user must pass in a node.
|
|
||
| std::string cmd = "rosrun xacro xacro "; | ||
| //TODO (anasarrak): Test ros2 xacro https://github.com/ros/xacro/tree/ros2 // https://github.com/bponsler/xacro | ||
| std::string cmd = "ros2 run xacro xacro"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have a demonstration of the RDF Loader loading it loading a robot description? Seems like a test that we should really consider adding
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've actually used xacro to transform from a .urdf.xacro to a .urdf for our models. The problem is that there is actually a ros2 branch for xacro, but is not oficially ported to ros2, the cmakelist is still with catkin... There is an open PR but I've been having problems with it.
The only working one is this one, and I managed to transform the urdf.xacro with the following command:
xacro --inorder mara_robot_camera_top.urdf.xacro -o mara_robot_camera_top.urdf
| @@ -49,48 +49,56 @@ | |||
| #include <fstream> | |||
| #include <streambuf> | |||
| #include <algorithm> | |||
| #include <chrono> | |||
|
|
|||
| rclcpp::Logger LOGGER = rclcpp::get_logger("moveit").get_child("rdf_loader"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should be inside a namespace like the other loggers.
If you wanted to use namespace rdf_loader then you could also find replace rdf_loader::RDFLoader:: with RDFLoader:: for every method in the namespace block
|
Closed in favor of #104 |
No description provided.