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

Fix compatibility with FT sensors names in URDF in icub-models >= 2 #562

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 1, 2023

Conversation

traversaro
Copy link
Member

Fix robotology/icub-models-generator#242 .

icub-models 2.0.0 changed the name of the FT sensors in the URDF from being named <identifier>_ft_sensor (like l_arm_ft_sensor, l_leg_ft_sensor, ...) to <identifier>_ft (like l_arm_ft, l_leg_ft, ...).
However, the yarprobotinterface configuration files continued to refer to the sensors as <identifier>_ft_sensor, creating errors for software that was trying to match sensors find in URDF and sensors as exposed by the YARP's multipleanalogsensorsserver device.

This PR changes all the instances of iCub configuration files to <identifier>_ft, restoring compatibility with icub-models 2.0.0 .

A similr PR done for ergoCub models is #561 .

Note that the name of the joint to which the sensor is attached remained <identifier>_ft_sensor, both before and after icub-models 2.0.0 release.

Copy link
Member

@pattacini pattacini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @traversaro

Thanks for the change!

I can see that the robots in icebox are touched.
Personally, I would stop accounting for them for any kind of update/fix.

What do you think?

@traversaro
Copy link
Member Author

I can see that the robots in icebox are touched. Personally, I would stop accounting for them for any kind of update/fix.

What do you think?

I tought the same, but it was sligthly more convenient not to exclude them from the seach&replace. If you prefer them to be a snapshot that is not touched, I can update the PR excluding the changes in that directory.

@pattacini
Copy link
Member

I can merge the PR straight away.

This is the downside of having maintained robots not stored in a dedicated folder.
On the other hand, doing so would have broken lots of branches.

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 this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants