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

Use latest tagged version of upstream osqp and osqp-eigen instead of local fork #242

Closed
traversaro opened this issue Sep 1, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #330
Closed

Comments

@traversaro
Copy link
Member

Apparently the robotology-superbuild is currently using a fork of osqp for dealing with some .gitattributes problems (see https://github.com/robotology/robotology-superbuild/pull/87/files#diff-fcad91dd1d4b0f9e2cc5f258bfa8b79bR10). As new version of osqp are being released, and sometimes they also contain breaking changes (see robotology/osqp-eigen#31) we should switch to use upstream osqp, optionally on a specific release tag, so that we can update to use new osqp version by just changing the tag.

@traversaro traversaro changed the title Use standard osqp Use upstream osqp instead of local fork Sep 1, 2019
@traversaro
Copy link
Member Author

The original issue was discussed in #87 (comment) and the following comments. Dropping Ubuntu 16.04 should be sufficient to solve the problem.

@traversaro
Copy link
Member Author

As of #243, the issue seem to be solved, probably due to using the latest ExternalProject module via requiring the latest YCM (see #224 and #199).

@traversaro traversaro changed the title Use upstream osqp instead of local fork Use latest tagged version of upstream osqp and osqp-eigen instead of local fork Sep 24, 2019
@traversaro
Copy link
Member Author

In #260 we used a custom tag for osqp-eigen with our fork of osqp. To fix this we need to update all the software that depends on osqp-eigen in the superbuild to deal with this new version, and then we can update.

@GiulioRomualdi let me know if you need my help on this.

@GiulioRomualdi
Copy link
Member

@S-Dafarra check this: #242 (comment) 😄

@traversaro
Copy link
Member Author

Just for clarity, I think the incompatibility for which the fork was necessary was just for Ubuntu 16.04 + GitHub Actions, not Ubuntu 16.04 on its own (that in any case we stopped testing in CI).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants