-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
[Feature Request] JointLimit should be inferred to be unlimited if a urdf has no explicitely defined JointLimit. #99
Comments
I'm not too sure about this default, it seems the docs specify that the default should be 0 if unspecified (here), This also seems to be the behavior for the ROS parser |
looking at the docs them selves:
this implies there are instances where ROS assumes there are no limits like on continuous joints. I suppose it makes sense from a safety sense, but its still inconvenient. Maybe there should be a JointLimit:: |
Yap there are continuous joints, it's a separate type (not revolute), have a look here. |
One option would be to add a method that returns Given that it would complicate the parsing code, it would not necessarily be easy to embed the limit in the |
Looking at
deserialize.rs
f64
defaults to 0.0, this means the max lower and upper bound is inferred to be 0.0. This means, if a urdf has no explicitely defined joint limit, urdf-rs defaults to the joint not being able to move at allI think
Default
forJointLimit
should be changed to the below to fix that.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: