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

Improve Documentation of JointState and MultiDOFJointState for clarity and differentiation #103

Closed
tfoote opened this issue Apr 8, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #114
Closed

Comments

@tfoote
Copy link
Contributor

tfoote commented Apr 8, 2020

This is a follwup to the pre Foxy Message API review

There were multiple comments about differentiation and clarity. Along the lines of the MultiDOFJointState represents the same information as the JointState for Multi Degreee of Freedom Joints as such the naming is specifically following the same pattern for a similar class of joints.

@tfoote
Copy link
Contributor Author

tfoote commented May 18, 2020

JointState.msg and MultiDOFJointState.msg have really similar names, and it’s commented in MultiDOF that they follow the same structure.
However, the structure is not similar in terms of the internal types used.

The internal types are direct analogs to the JointState message.

  • name -> joint_names: This was made more explicit as the original was considered ambiguous, but changing the existing implementation would be disruptive.
  • position -> transform: A transform is the multiDOF equivalent of a position.
  • velocity -> twist: The multi dimensional version of velocity.
  • effort -> wrench: The multi dimensional representation of torques.

MultiDOFJointState is actually plural states

State is already ambiguous as to how many items it's reflecting and the message can reflect 0 or more elements. Any change in this area would still be slightly ambiguous so we should default to keeping it stable at it is to avoid disruption.

tfoote added a commit that referenced this issue May 18, 2020
tfoote added a commit that referenced this issue May 19, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant