Joint Force-Torque Sensor

[chawladevansh]

🎉 New feature

Closes #25

Summary

Joint force-torque sensor implementation.

Test it

Checklist

• Signed all commits for DCO
• Added tests
• Added example and/or tutorial
• Updated documentation (as needed)
• Updated migration guide (as needed)
• codecheck passed (See contributing)
• All tests passed (See test coverage)
• While waiting for a review on your PR, please help review another open pull request to support the maintainers

Note to maintainers: Remember to use Squash-Merge

🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸

[ahcorde]

I just noticed that this is a draft, anyhow I just made some comments

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #144 (b49a430) into main (fb97d96) will increase coverage by 0.37%.
The diff coverage is 85.43%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #144      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.52%   75.90%   +0.37%     
==========================================
  Files          25       27       +2     
  Lines        2644     2747     +103     
==========================================
+ Hits         1997     2085      +88     
- Misses        647      662      +15     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/ForceTorqueSensor.cc	85.29% <85.29%> (ø)
include/ignition/sensors/ForceTorqueSensor.hh	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fb97d96...b49a430. Read the comment docs.

[chapulina]

DCO is failing, but we can fix that when merging the PR.

[chapulina]

I personally prefer to get to the expectations on a test in a different way from the source code's implementation. For example, I think this test doesn't really help us find problems with the implementation:

// Code
int sum(int _a, int _b)
{
  return _a * _b;
}

// Test
EXPECT_EQ(a * b, sum(a, b));

A better test would be:

// Values obtained with a calculator
EXPECT_EQ(3, sum(1, 2));

I don't think the current test needs to be changed. Just a general comment.

stale