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

Make ROS 2 compatible support packages available (URDF, etc) #73

Open
gavanderhoorn opened this issue Jun 21, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Make ROS 2 compatible support packages available (URDF, etc) #73

gavanderhoorn opened this issue Jun 21, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels
todo Not an issue, just a TODO
Milestone

Comments

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Collaborator

gavanderhoorn commented Jun 21, 2023

We have a set of support packages available over at gavanderhoorn/motoman@ros2.

More will be added in the future, and the changes will be merged upstream.

Note these support packages still use the old joint name convention from MotoROS1 (ie: joint_l_s, etc). This is no longer needed with MotoROS2, and the names will be changed to the more generic joint_1, joint_2, etc.

See also Can names of joints be changed? in the FAQ.

@gavanderhoorn gavanderhoorn added the todo Not an issue, just a TODO label Jun 21, 2023
@gavanderhoorn gavanderhoorn added this to the untargeted milestone Jun 21, 2023
@gavanderhoorn gavanderhoorn pinned this issue Jun 21, 2023
@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I've pinned this to increase visibility.

@marip8
Copy link

marip8 commented Jul 6, 2023

Do you think it would be possible to support both ROS1 and ROS2 in a revised support package repository? It seems like this should be possible with a tool like ros_industrial_cmake_boilerplate to set up the packages independent of catkin and ament and to install artifacts to the correct locations. It would be nice not to have two equivalent but separate repositories to maintain

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes, that should be possible.

I don't believe we need RICB for that though. In the end, I believe "all" that would be needed would be a marker for the resource index, perhaps some meta-data for colcon and indeed installing things in the correct places.

For support pkgs specifically though there is one thing that we'd need to check additionally: IIRC, package:// URIs are not supported everywhere, or at least not in Gazebo/gazebo_ros2_control. We do use those, so unless one of the (currently) known work-arounds works for us as well, that might prevent a ROS1-ROS2 combined approach.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Related discussion: ros-industrial/motoman#584.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

gavanderhoorn commented Aug 22, 2024

As a heads up: I intend to update gavanderhoorn/motoman@ros2 soon.

It's currently behind kinetic-devel of upstream motoman and a set of PRs is also slated to get merged there which will have to be migrated as well.

Due to the way the fork/branch works, this update will be in the form of a force-push, meaning all existing clones will have to reset their checkouts.


Edit: current state of the update: gavanderhoorn/motoman@ros2_rebased_and_cleaned.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
todo Not an issue, just a TODO
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants