[RSDK-869] Allow for servo to turn more than 180 #1624
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
npmenard
added
the
safe to test
viambot
added
safe to test
viambot
added
safe to test
randhid
approved these changes
Nov 28, 2022
| @@ -193,7 +190,7 @@ func newGPIOServo(ctx context.Context, deps registry.Dependencies, cfg config.Co | |||
| var _ = servo.LocalServo(&servoGPIO{}) | |||
|
|
|||
| // Given minUs, maxUs, deg and frequency attempt to calculate the corresponding duty cycle pct. | |||
| func mapDegToDutyCylePct(minUs, maxUs uint, deg float64, frequency uint) float64 { | |||
| func mapDegToDutyCylePct(minUs, maxUs uint, minDeg, maxDeg, deg float64, frequency uint) float64 { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should these also be functions on the servo object and use the stored servo variables? Would it be less/more boiler plate? Otherwise looks good to me.
|
Let's test with a few servos in office when you're back. |
penguinland
reviewed
Nov 28, 2022
| } | ||
| if config.MaxDeg != nil && *config.MaxDeg > maxDeg { | ||
| return nil, viamutils.NewConfigValidationError(path, errors.Errorf("max_angle_deg cannot be higher than %f", maxDeg)) | ||
| if config.MinDeg != nil && *config.MinDeg < 0 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There used to be a corresponding check for MaxDeg, but it's now gone. Shouldn't it still be here, modified in a similar way to the MinDeg check?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we don't enforce an upper limit for maxDeg since it's dependent on the hardware. in theory we should also ignore the test minDeg and let a user set a negative minimum deg
There was a problem hiding this comment.
...so why not do that, too? (i.e., why not get rid of this check and allow a negative minimum value?)
viambot
added
safe to test
|
Does this count as a breaking change? I'm inclined to say no, but I want a second opinion on that. |
|
It's only semantically breaking in the slightest way and only specific to go; you'd have to assume you are expecting errors to happen above 180 and you may be testing/working against that. I think that's an okay breaking change to make. API wise, it's not in proto as @npmenard mentioned and widening an integral type is also not breaking. |
viambot
added
safe to test
|
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR slightly change the gpio servo model to support servo that rotates more than 180 degrees. I needed to change the types in the servo interface because we use to encode servo position in an uint8. Note that this doesn't affect API since the degree value passed in protobuf messages is a uint32