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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
RSDK-1718 - Add GetInternalState to SLAM RDK #1776
RSDK-1718 - Add GetInternalState to SLAM RDK #1776
Changes from 9 commits
64c5e6f
cac74a0
76d6b16
f527161
13ae36f
f124db9
d021e0d
a7ffade
a346a3e
5a20544
22d8f29
b6e1013
f68d1e8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are we changing integration tests if the PR description says that integration tests will come later? #1776 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Talked offline but testing was needed to validate and it wasn't much work (replicating work done during the GetInternalState for carto) so I chose to include it here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why is this changing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Initially it was set up to test the various endpoints in one fucntion, however these endpoints and their outputs do not relate to eachother. With the addition of get internal state and the fact that it may not be called every run. I choose to make these checks independent so any combination could be called.
I also choose to increase the robustness of testing by doing an inBetween check for the Position instead of just logging he output.
Happy to discuss either of these points as they are improvements rather than requirements for this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did you run the test several times to determine reasonable values for the position and orientation tolerance?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, should we make this change to the orbslam integration tests as well? Or expect to do that when we add GetInternalState to orbslam integration tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Re @tessavitabile 's first point: when I ran tests on my mac, they consistently fail due to an actual value being out of range:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We think this may be an issue where hardware is processing and save the artifact images a different speeds, leading to different timestamps and altering the calculation. I'll be investigating ways to mitigate that but we can't standardize the filename timestamps because that would defeat the purpose of the end to end test. At the very least we'll make sure tolerance values are sufficient (I've run it on my laptop's docker 20+ times with no failures)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, I would like to make sure this is stable, both locally and in CI, before merging this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This still fails on my mac:
go test -run TestCartographerIntegration2D -v
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this changing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See comment above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are we comparing RX (axis angle) to OX (orientation vector) here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good call out, I'll make sure these are of the same type. Will most likely go with Axis angle due to readability and as that was what we were using before.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Defined expected position and orientation here as opposed to passing them into the function as it centralizes any changes to the expected values to one location.
Let me know if you'd prefer we handle this a different way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same here, it seems incorrect that we're comparing axis angle representation to orientation vector representation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See previous comment