Remove tf_id from Waypoint.msg #629
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
|
Tested, works for me, thank you for the quick turn around |
qhdwight
approved these changes
Jan 13, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
What features did you add, bugs did you fix, etc?
Fixes the issue where tf_id is being created based on the tag_id. Now the tf link is based on the current index in the waypoints list instead, so there is no need for tf_id anymore in Waypoint.msg.
Did you add documentation to the wiki?
No
How was this code tested?
Ran debug_course_publisher.py with tag_id set to 0 for two of the waypoints in the waypoint list. Before the fix, one of the waypoints would be ignored because both waypoints would be published to the tf tree as "course0". After the fix, all waypoints are visited and behavior is as expected.
Did you test this in sim?
Yes
Did you test this on the rover?
No
Did you add unit tests?
No, but fixed old test files