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

getMotionIds() doesn't handle motions in nested namespaces #23

Open
v-lopez opened this issue Mar 5, 2014 · 3 comments
Open

getMotionIds() doesn't handle motions in nested namespaces #23

v-lopez opened this issue Mar 5, 2014 · 3 comments
Milestone

Comments

@v-lopez
Copy link
Contributor

v-lopez commented Mar 5, 2014

Given the following parameters in the param server:

play_motion:
  motions:
    alive_engine:
      backwards_1:
        joints: []
          ....
    wave:
      joints: []  

getMotionIds() will return [alive_engine, wave]. But alive_engine is not a motion, but a namespace that contains other motions.

I believe it should:

  1. Check that what it has found is a motion (ie it has joints, points, etc..)
  2. If it is not a motion, look for motions nested within it.
@po1 po1 added the enhancement label Mar 5, 2014
@po1 po1 added this to the 0.4 milestone Mar 5, 2014
@po1
Copy link
Contributor

po1 commented Mar 5, 2014

Nested parameters were never directly supported. You could get around by having slashes in their names. This means if you send a goal referring to alive_engine/backwards, it should work. But there is no explicit logic in play_motion to support nested motions.

Is there a real value in having nested motions as opposed to just prefixing the motion names?

@po1 po1 removed this from the 0.4 milestone Mar 5, 2014
@v-lopez
Copy link
Contributor Author

v-lopez commented Mar 5, 2014

Probably we can live without nested motions, it just that it is more clear visually to have them nested somewhere.

I can easily change the motions to be prefixed by "alive_" instead of nesting.

@po1
Copy link
Contributor

po1 commented Mar 5, 2014

I targeted this issue for 0.5. This will be the next release after the integration with planning.

@adolfo-rt adolfo-rt modified the milestones: 0.4, 0.5 Apr 1, 2014
@po1 po1 self-assigned this Jun 16, 2014
@po1 po1 removed their assignment Sep 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants