Adding new mission profile for row operation #182
Conversation
GPrathap
commented
Feb 9, 2024
GPrathap
commented
- Refactor
- Feature
- Bug Fix
- Optimization
- Documentation Update
Adding new mission profile row operation
Row operation
|
As row operations are a use-case action, rather then a general use of topological navigation, this may be best to not define internally but through supporting systems (i.e. a polytunnel_topological_navigation package) which works alongside toponav. If you can make the row-operation more generic than I think it sohuld be okay though. Perhaps more of a focus on precision edge-traversal. Thoughts @marc-hanheide ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we must rethink the structure. I see 2 options:
- We evolve a plugin infrastructure, allowing specific functions to be loaded dynamically and configurable.
- We consider things like the
edge_manager(and other managers) as base classes and allow them to be overridden. It still requires some refactoring of the overall structure.
So, I wouldn't want to merge this as the fully correct way forward. For now, to demonstrate the AOC system, we should keep in a separate (aoc) branch or so, but making this the main concept looks not properly thought out yet.
@Iranaphor @GPrathap shall we meet soon and reinvigorate the toponav working group?
| self.bt_trees = {} | ||
| self.in_row_operation = False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with @Iranaphor that we should NOT have anothing specific about row navigation in topological_navigation. topological_navigation must remain domain-general. If its current structure doesn't allow to embed domain specific navigation modes then we must see how we facilitate this, e.g., through a plugin infrastrcture.
|
|
||
| self.update_params_control_server = update_params_control_server | ||
| self.current_robot_pose = None | ||
| self.odom_sub = self.create_subscription(Odometry, '/odometry/global', self.odom_callback, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We shouldn't have fixed global topic names (without namespace). They are very application specific. Again, if a special way of treating e.g. progression along an edge then we should have something like a plugin that toponav uses to facilitate this. I sense we need a dedicated meeting to agree on the structure of the new topo. We should schedule a meeting just on that after Easter.
| @@ -102,9 +137,17 @@ def get_goal_cancle_error_msg(self, status_code): | |||
| return self.ACTIONS.goal_cancle_error_codes[0] | |||
|
|
|||
| def initialise(self, bt_trees, edge, destination_node, origin_node=None | |||
| , action_name=None, package="nav2_msgs.action"): | |||
| , action_name=None, package="nav2_msgs.action", in_row_operation=False): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
see above, I'm reluctant to have row navigation as a mode within toponav
Poop topo nodes
|
Moving towards a soon-ish new toponav release, where are we this? |
|
https://github.com/LCAS/topological_navigation/tree/aoc has the latest changes |
