Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

ur_kinematics issues and future work? #442

Closed
Yuki-cpp opened this issue Jul 4, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

ur_kinematics issues and future work? #442

Yuki-cpp opened this issue Jul 4, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@Yuki-cpp
Copy link

Yuki-cpp commented Jul 4, 2019

We were looking at ur_kinematics and noticed that it seems to have received little attention over the last year despite a number of issues. A project has been created that consolidates all of these issues, but is there a roadmap to address them? If not, we will modify ur_kinematics to fit our own purposes, including a fairly large refactoring that would probably break existing API but would make the package more functional. Would you be interested in this sort of work?

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

Yes, there would certainly be interest.

However, ur_kinematics is first and foremost a MoveIt IK plugin for the UR MoveIt packages. That functionality must be preserved in some way (through a shim or some other way).

Second: the currently outstanding PRs seem to resolve quite a few issues and I'd like those to be integrated instead of ignored.

re: planning: properly dealing with IK-related issues is non-trivial and they potentially have a large impact if handled incorrectly. There simply hasn't been someone taking this on. If you'd be willing to do that, I'd fully support it.

@haudren
Copy link

haudren commented Jul 8, 2019

I'm piggybacking on this issue to give a little update:

  • We started some work on this, we'll keep you updated as soon as we have something worth showing
  • I noticed that IK: combine PRs #239, #305, and #316 #358 would bring a lot of improvements, any idea what's blocking here? We would like to base our improvements on it.

Thanks,

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

We started some work on this, we'll keep you updated as soon as we have something worth showing

may I suggest to provide updates sooner and more often?

It would be very unfortunate if you spend a lot of effort only to not pass a (PR) review later.

I noticed that #358 would bring a lot of improvements, any idea what's blocking here? We would like to base our improvements on it.

As I wrote in my first response:

re: planning: properly dealing with IK-related issues is non-trivial and they potentially have a large impact if handled incorrectly. There simply hasn't been someone taking this on.

It's a matter of resources.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

@Yuki-cpp @haudren: have you made any progress?

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

Ping @Yuki-cpp and @haudren.

@ros-industrial ros-industrial locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 10, 2023
@gavanderhoorn gavanderhoorn converted this issue into discussion #665 Oct 10, 2023

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants