-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 128
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
Feature/tp/had output #452
Conversation
@lemmer-fzi I tried switching the base so this PR only showed the changes that were relevant to this (i.e. just the motion request file) but it still seems to pick up all the commits from the PR401 branch, so I suspect it is because the PR401 branch has since been rebased onto a new master. I'm happy to sort that out, but it would be easiest to do it by rebasing this branch which is a slightly destructive option so don't want to break anything you've got locally. |
@caspar-ai If you want to go ahead and rebase the branch to make the changes more clear that is fine for me. |
299de36
to
6af0b96
Compare
6af0b96
to
15659d1
Compare
@lemmer-fzi all done.
There is still some odd indentation, but probably not worth worrying about too much now. |
@caspar-ai While the oneof makes the intent clearer, we are currently avoiding oneof (see the Actions in TrafficCommand for another instance where oneof might have been used but was backed out), since it has a number of backward/forward compatibility issues on ProtoBuf, is on the wire equivalent to multiple optional fields anyway, and currently cannot be auto converted to flatbuffers. I think in this case two optional fields with documentation stating that only one of them shall be used at any one time would be sufficient. |
15659d1
to
5594fe0
Compare
@pmai interesting, thanks. I was just trying to avoid reinventing the wheel, but happy to stick with the long-hand way of doing it. I've reverted that change. |
osi_motionrequest.proto
Outdated
|
||
// | ||
// \brief The desired state calculated by the had function as a result of the motion planning stack. | ||
// The actuator management is supposed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the end of the sentence missing? What is the actuator management supposed to?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@paagkame The end of the sentence was indeed missing. I added the rest of the descirpiton with a new commit.
Output from CCB meeting - 13.01.2021
|
Output from CCB meeting - 20.01.2021
|
e72f888
to
c981a20
Compare
|
c1c3182
to
c1e2b45
Compare
@Krishna626 I've done the rebase and pushed the updated branch. A few comments:
|
@caspar-ai Thanks for your efforts. I have done the signoff for all the commits modified and tried again to push to the branch with the instructions mentioned in DCO. Again i get a message, that permission denied to push to the branch. @pmai What am I missing to bring my local changes to the remote? Surprisingly, I able to commit through IDE/Web browser. Can you please help me out with this? Thanks!
|
c1e2b45
to
907a4e2
Compare
7798c0e
to
8c2872f
Compare
As discussed i have made the relevant changes to the documentation and updated the pictures for the traffic participants to include information for the proposed MotionRequest message. |
CCB 2023-03-13: Merge as-is with DCO fixes and history cleanup by @pmai during merge. |
This serves as an interface between the HAD function and the actuator management. Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Kothamasu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
16218be
to
d058a21
Compare
Also added somme comments for clarification of the coordinate system. Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Mehl <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Kothamasu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Mehl <[email protected]>
Now DesiredState and Trajectory messages are part of one top level message MotionRequest. Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Kothamasu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Kothamasu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Maximilian Rosin <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Maximilian Rosin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Philip Windecker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Philip Windecker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pierre R. Mai <[email protected]>
d058a21
to
2893ff2
Compare
Added osi_motionrequest.proto file containing a MotionRequest message. The message is intended as an interface between a HAD function and the actuator managment. The current version of the version implemented contains options for DesiredState and a future trajectory.
The implementation uses the changes made in pull request 401 "Add future trajectory to moving object".
Check the checklist