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

Feature/tp/had output #452

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Mar 24, 2023
Merged

Feature/tp/had output #452

merged 19 commits into from
Mar 24, 2023

Conversation

lemmer-fzi
Copy link
Contributor

@lemmer-fzi lemmer-fzi commented Dec 10, 2020

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

  • My code and comments follow the style guidelines and contributors guidelines of this project.
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code.
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
  • My changes generate no new warnings.
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
  • New and existing unit tests / travis ci pass locally with my changes.

@lemmer-fzi lemmer-fzi added FeatureRequest Proposals which enhance the interface or add additional features. TrafficParticipants The group in the ASAM development project working on traffic participants. labels Dec 10, 2020
@caspar-ai caspar-ai changed the base branch from master to WP-10-traffic-update-proposal December 17, 2020 13:53
@caspar-ai caspar-ai changed the base branch from WP-10-traffic-update-proposal to master December 17, 2020 13:54
@lemmer-fzi lemmer-fzi added the ReadyForCCBReview Indicates that this MR is ready for a final review and merge by the CCB. label Dec 17, 2020
@caspar-ai
Copy link
Contributor

@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.

@lemmer-fzi
Copy link
Contributor Author

@caspar-ai If you want to go ahead and rebase the branch to make the changes more clear that is fine for me.

@caspar-ai caspar-ai force-pushed the feature/tp/had-output branch from 299de36 to 6af0b96 Compare December 17, 2020 14:41
@caspar-ai caspar-ai changed the base branch from master to WP-10-traffic-update-proposal December 17, 2020 14:41
@caspar-ai caspar-ai force-pushed the feature/tp/had-output branch from 6af0b96 to 15659d1 Compare December 17, 2020 14:42
@caspar-ai
Copy link
Contributor

@lemmer-fzi all done.

  • rebased the branch onto the latest WP-10 branch
  • updated the PR base branch to be the WP-10 branch so the changes tab only shows the changes relating to this PR
  • fixed up the sign-off check

There is still some odd indentation, but probably not worth worrying about too much now.

@pmai
Copy link
Contributor

pmai commented Dec 17, 2020

@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.

@caspar-ai caspar-ai force-pushed the feature/tp/had-output branch from 15659d1 to 5594fe0 Compare December 17, 2020 17:47
@caspar-ai
Copy link
Contributor

@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.


//
// \brief The desired state calculated by the had function as a result of the motion planning stack.
// The actuator management is supposed
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@kmeids
Copy link

kmeids commented Jan 13, 2021

Output from CCB meeting - 13.01.2021
Actions:

  1. @Krishna626 Review osi_motionrequest.proto file, namely the Trajectory and DesiredState; they probably should be a part of MotionRequest and not the top level message (this is only an observation).

@kmeids kmeids removed the ReadyForCCBReview Indicates that this MR is ready for a final review and merge by the CCB. label Jan 13, 2021
@Krishna626 Krishna626 added the ReadyForCCBReview Indicates that this MR is ready for a final review and merge by the CCB. label Jan 18, 2021
@kmeids kmeids added Documentation Everything which impacts the quality of the documentation and guidelines. and removed ReadyForCCBReview Indicates that this MR is ready for a final review and merge by the CCB. labels Jan 20, 2021
@kmeids
Copy link

kmeids commented Jan 20, 2021

Output from CCB meeting - 20.01.2021
Actions:

  1. @max-rosin Documentation Review to be done (including some additional spaces to be removed).

@pmai pmai force-pushed the WP-10-traffic-update-proposal branch from e72f888 to c981a20 Compare January 26, 2021 12:45
@paagkame paagkame requested a review from max-rosin January 29, 2021 08:46
@ThomasNaderBMW ThomasNaderBMW self-requested a review February 1, 2021 13:35
@Krishna626 Krishna626 changed the base branch from WP-10-traffic-update-proposal to master February 7, 2021 07:47
@Krishna626
Copy link
Contributor

  • Edited PR Merge to master instead of WP10. Requried dependency (StatePoint Message) is already integrated in master/osi_common.proto.
  • Merge should able to work. Conflicts can safely be resolved.
    -- PR intention is to add a new file (osi_motionrequest.proto) to master
  • Unable to push local changes (Rebase to master + conflicts resloved) to remote. Permission got denied.
    -- Will be tried again on monday with @ThomasNaderBMW
  • @lemmer-fzi: For your information.

@caspar-ai caspar-ai force-pushed the feature/tp/had-output branch from c1c3182 to c1e2b45 Compare February 8, 2021 09:50
@caspar-ai
Copy link
Contributor

@Krishna626 I've done the rebase and pushed the updated branch. A few comments:

  • When you didn't have permissions did you do git push --force? You need --force because you have rewritten history, and you need to understand the implications of doing that (as in, anyone else with that branch checked out will have to delete it and re-check it out)
  • It picked up a couple of minor docs fixes in other files, presumably @paagkame made those in commits mostly fixing motion request docs
  • I tidied up the "Signed off" lines to add yours to the most recent 3 commits @Krishna626 hope that's OK
  • @pmai there are errors on the DCO check - every commit is signed off but seemingly not with the precise names / emails people are expecting. How would you suggest is the best way of fixing? Manually fixing up every commit to have the GitLab expected names / emails - even if they are a bit "odd", e.g. from when Krisha made commits in the web IDE?

@Krishna626
Copy link
Contributor

Krishna626 commented Feb 10, 2021

@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!

git rebase HEAD~10 --signoff
Now your commits will have your sign off. Next run
git push --force-with-lease origin feature/tp/had-output

@Krishna626 Krishna626 force-pushed the feature/tp/had-output branch from c1e2b45 to 907a4e2 Compare February 11, 2021 08:26
@philipwindecker philipwindecker force-pushed the feature/tp/had-output branch from 7798c0e to 8c2872f Compare March 2, 2023 13:59
@lemmer-fzi
Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@ThomasNaderBMW ThomasNaderBMW added the ReadyForCCBReview Indicates that this MR is ready for a final review and merge by the CCB. label Mar 13, 2023
doc/architecture/traffic_participant.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/usecases/modeling_traffic_participant.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/architecture/architecture_overview.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@pmai pmai added ReadyToMerge This PR has been approved to merge and will be merged by a member of the CCB. and removed ReadyForCCBReview Indicates that this MR is ready for a final review and merge by the CCB. labels Mar 13, 2023
@pmai
Copy link
Contributor

pmai commented Mar 13, 2023

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]>
@pmai pmai force-pushed the feature/tp/had-output branch from 16218be to d058a21 Compare March 24, 2023 20:33
lemmer-fzi and others added 18 commits March 24, 2023 21:40
Also added somme comments for clarification of the coordinate system.

Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Kothamasu <[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: Maximilian Rosin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Markus Lemmer <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Philip Windecker <[email protected]>
@pmai pmai force-pushed the feature/tp/had-output branch from d058a21 to 2893ff2 Compare March 24, 2023 20:43
@pmai pmai merged commit 222a8f4 into master Mar 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Documentation Everything which impacts the quality of the documentation and guidelines. FeatureRequest Proposals which enhance the interface or add additional features. Other Models ReadyToMerge This PR has been approved to merge and will be merged by a member of the CCB. TrafficParticipants The group in the ASAM development project working on traffic participants.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.