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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Backport: Force Torque #732

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 28, 2021
Merged

Backport: Force Torque #732

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 28, 2021

Conversation

azeey
Copy link
Collaborator

@azeey azeey commented Oct 14, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Backport #393, #517, #669.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the 🏢 edifice Ignition Edifice label Oct 14, 2021
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #732 (f9320c9) into sdf11 (b0f7f4f) will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            sdf11     #732      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.12%   88.17%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          73       73              
  Lines       11023    11074      +51     
==========================================
+ Hits         9714     9765      +51     
  Misses       1309     1309
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/ForceTorque.cc 87.75% <100.00%> (+13.28%) ⬆️

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 b0f7f4f...f9320c9. Read the comment docs.

@chapulina
Copy link
Contributor

Should / can it backported to sdf9 and then merged forward?

@azeey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

azeey commented Oct 18, 2021

Should / can it backported to sdf9 and then merged forward?

sdf9 doesn't have the ForceTorque class since it was only added to sdf11 in #393, so I thought I should backport the noise stuff to just sdf11. But looking at the code, I don't see why #393 can't be backported to sdf9, so I'll go ahead and do that.

@chapulina chapulina self-requested a review October 25, 2021 18:54
nlamprian and others added 3 commits October 27, 2021 15:50
@nlamprian @scpeters @azeey
Add force torque sensor (gazebosim#393)
6fc2f6e 
Signed-off-by: Nick Lamprianidis <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Steve Peters <[email protected]>
@azeey @jennuine
Add Joint DOM API to access joint sensors (gazebosim#517)
675ff8c 
* Add Joint DOM API to access joint sensors

Signed-off-by: Addisu Z. Taddese <[email protected]>

* Add missing file

Signed-off-by: Addisu Z. Taddese <[email protected]>

* modified Joint::SensorNameExists

Signed-off-by: Jenn Nguyen <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Jenn Nguyen <[email protected]>
@mjcarroll @scpeters @azeey
Added Force Torque Noise functions + Unit tests (gazebosim#669)
ce47802 
* Added Force Torque Noise functions + Unit tests

Signed-off-by: Devansh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michael Carroll <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Steve Peters <[email protected]>
@azeey azeey changed the base branch from sdf11 to sdf9 October 27, 2021 22:11
@azeey azeey force-pushed the backport_force_torque branch from f9320c9 to ce47802 Compare October 27, 2021 22:12
@azeey azeey changed the title Backport: Added Force Torque Noise functions + Unit tests Backport: Force Torque Oct 27, 2021
@azeey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

azeey commented Oct 27, 2021

@chapulina I have backported this to sdf9, but to do so I've had to backport additional PRs. I put them all in this PR for expediency, but let me know if I should split them out into their own PRs.

Also, in this case, which merge strategy should we use, "Rebase and merge"?

@chapulina
Copy link
Contributor

should we use, "Rebase and merge"?

+1, that way we keep the commits separate

@azeey azeey merged commit 209eba9 into gazebosim:sdf9 Oct 28, 2021
@azeey azeey deleted the backport_force_torque branch October 28, 2021 17:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@scpeters scpeters scpeters approved these changes

@chapulina chapulina Awaiting requested review from chapulina

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
🏢 edifice Ignition Edifice
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@azeey @codecov-commenter @chapulina @scpeters @nlamprian