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

Test HumanStateProvider after rebasing feature/visualize-berdy-estimated-wrench to devel #187

Closed
yeshasvitirupachuri opened this issue Feb 20, 2020 · 9 comments

Comments

@yeshasvitirupachuri
Copy link
Member

Following the PR #164 by @lrapetti , major changes are made to HumanStateProvider device to add the feature of secondary calibration. Also, HumanStateProvider device was updated in parallel with base offset removal features #153.

For the sake of aligning the branches, I rebased feature/visualize-berdy-estimated-wrench onto the devel branch after PR #164 was merged. Clearly, there were a lot of conflicts in HumanStateProvider.cpp file and I managed to fix them. I ran HDE and the rviz visualization seems to be fine. However, I did not test all the rpc features related to base offset removal and secondary calibration. So, I pushed changes after rebasing to a new branch https://github.com/Yeshasvitvs/human-dynamics-estimation/tree/test/devel-rebase that needs to be tested.

@lrapetti please test this branch and most importantly try to double check and test the commit https://github.com/Yeshasvitvs/human-dynamics-estimation/commit/4a60f2ae0f80a383fb1dfe528c0d2296a0a709c1.

@lrapetti
Copy link
Member

Hi @Yeshasvitvs, I am failing in compiling this branch with the following:

/Users/lorenzorapetti/Software/robotology-superbuild/robotology/human-dynamics-estimation/devices/HumanDynamicsEstimator/HumanDynamicsEstimator.cpp:1879:34: error: 
      no matching member function for call to
      'updateEstimateInformationFloatingBase'
        pImpl->berdyData.solver->updateEstimateInformationFloatingBase(p...
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/Users/lorenzorapetti/Software/robotology-superbuild/build/install/include/iDynTree/Estimation/BerdySparseMAPSolver.h:75:14: note: 
      candidate function not viable: requires 5 arguments, but 6 were provided
        void updateEstimateInformationFloatingBase(const JointPosDoubleA...
             ^
/Users/lorenzorapetti/Software/robotology-superbuild/build/install/include/iDynTree/Estimation/BerdySparseMAPSolver.h:81:14: note: 
      candidate function not viable: requires 7 arguments, but 6 were provided
        void updateEstimateInformationFloatingBase(const Transform& base...
             ^
2 errors generated.

I guess I'm not using the correct branch of wearables. I am currently using idyntree-hde-fork/feature/stack-of-tasks-berdy is it correct or should I use another branch

@yeshasvitirupachuri
Copy link
Member Author

@lrapetti idyntree branch is correct but may be the commit is not. The recent commits on that branch updated the updateEstimateInformationFloatingBase() with a new argument. Please roll back to the commit previous to this change and try to compile

@lrapetti
Copy link
Member

@lrapetti idyntree branch is correct but may be the commit is not. The recent commits on that branch updated the updateEstimateInformationFloatingBase() with a new argument. Please roll back to the commit previous to this change and try to compile

I confirm I was able to compile after rolling back to commit ami-iit/idyntree-hde-fork@02d2f3c

@lrapetti
Copy link
Member

I checked the code and test the command and seem to be answering correctly.
Unfortunately, currently I do not have the possibility to test the visualisation on MacOS so I can not be sure about the behaviour.

Anyway I think you can procede from this rebase and eventually do a final test when we will be merging this branch in devel and if strange behaviours occurs we can fix them later.

@claudia-lat
Copy link
Contributor

@lrapetti drop here a comment on why we are moving this issue into Backlog.

@lrapetti
Copy link
Member

@lrapetti drop here a comment on why we are moving this issue into Backlog.

Even if it seems to be working fine, I cannot visualize the output at the moment so it is better to duble check it in the future. At the moment, checking if this rebase work is not critical since the branch is far from being merged, so we can move it to backlog

@lrapetti
Copy link
Member

Some tests were done in the past, anyway we will need to rebase it again after latest changes. I will close the issue for the time being.

traversaro pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 23, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment