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

Rtde recipe publishing #35

Open
wants to merge 22 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

t-schnell
Copy link
Collaborator

Implements automatic publishing of requested RTDE data to ROS topics.

Copy link
Collaborator

@fmauch fmauch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mainly some documentation missing.

@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ add_library(ur_robot_driver
src/ur/dashboard_client.cpp
src/ur/tool_communication.cpp
src/rtde/rtde_writer.cpp
src/ros/data_field_publisher.cpp
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add this to the actual node and not to the non-ros library. Please also see #34 that might get merged before this.

Comment on lines 38 to 77
class DataPackagePublisher
{
public:
DataPackagePublisher() = delete;

DataPackagePublisher(const std::vector<std::string>& recipe, ros::NodeHandle& nh) : recipe_(recipe)
{
for (auto str : recipe)
{
publishers_.push_back(DataFieldPublisher::createFromString(str, nh));
}
}

void publishData(const std::unique_ptr<DataPackage>& data_package)
{
for (auto const& i : publishers_)
{
i->publish(data_package);
}
}

private:
std::vector<std::string> recipe_;
std::list<std::unique_ptr<DataFieldPublisher>> publishers_;
};
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No Doxygen documentation for this class?

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Contributor

A high-level comment: publishing raw std_msgs is considered bad practice. Low semantic value and increased potential for (inadvertent) misuse.

Best practice suggests correctly typed topics should be used wherever possible.

Could the rationale for publishing these raw values be clarified, perhaps here in this issue or in some other place?

*
* \returns True if the realtime publisher could publish the data.
*/
virtual bool publish(const std::unique_ptr<DataPackage>& data_package) = 0;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would passing a plain DataPackage const& work here? If there is no strong need for DataFieldPublishers to have access to the pointer, a plain reference would seem better.

private:
DataT data_;
std::string data_field_identifier_;
std::unique_ptr<realtime_tools::RealtimePublisher<MsgT>> pub_;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Similar question here: pub_ could be made a direct member of the class, instead of wrapping it in a unique_ptr.

Is pub_ ever shared outside of this class?

{
if (data_package->getData(data_field_identifier_, data_))
{
if (pub_)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When would this evaluate to false?

Is it possible for publish(..) to be called before pub_ is initialised?

{
for (size_t i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
pub_->msg_.data[i] = data_[i];
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If data_ is contiguous, perhaps std::copy could be used.

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
#include "ur_robot_driver/ros/data_field_publisher.h"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have not checked other files: should this #include be moved below the license?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

uh, that slipped through my eyes. Of course, thank you.

Comment on lines 51 to 54
using _vector3d_publisher = ArrayDataPublisher<double, std_msgs::Float64MultiArray, 3>;
using _vector6d_publisher = ArrayDataPublisher<double, std_msgs::Float64MultiArray, 6>;
using _vector6int32_publisher = ArrayDataPublisher<int32_t, std_msgs::Int32MultiArray, 6>;
using _vector6uint32_publisher = ArrayDataPublisher<uint32_t, std_msgs::UInt32MultiArray, 6>;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The *MultiArray messages need the stride and size configured (among other things) to correct values, otherwise Subscribers can't deserialise them properly.

Does ArrayDataPublisher do that?

Comment on lines 60 to 63
if (DataPackage::isType<bool>(data_field_identifier))
{
return std::unique_ptr<DataFieldPublisher>(new _bool_publisher(data_field_identifier, nh));
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could templating be used here? Ctor of all DataFieldPublishers seems identical.

Comment on lines 55 to 56
ROS_ERROR_STREAM(rtde_interface::DataPackage::isType<double>("actual_q"));
ROS_ERROR_STREAM(rtde_interface::DataPackage::isType<vector6d_t>("actual_q"));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are these lines included intentionally?

@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented Nov 14, 2019

A high-level comment: publishing raw std_msgs is considered bad practice. Low semantic value and increased potential for (inadvertent) misuse.

Best practice suggests correctly typed topics should be used wherever possible.

Could the rationale for publishing these raw values be clarified, perhaps here in this issue or in some other place?

The idea is that if users are interested in getting additional data from the RTDE interface they can do so without code modifications, but by only specifying them in the recipe. Publishing raw data is the only option that we see without explicitly preparing a publisher for each possible RTDE data field and instanciating them on-demand. We consider this more of an easy-access power-functionality instead of something out of the box.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Contributor

We consider this more of an easy-access power-functionality instead of something out of the box.

Unfortunately I expect this -- ie: raw values from RTDE recipies -- to become the default way people will start interacting with the driver over a ROS API.

As I believe one of the goals of this driver is to be an example of how to properly integrate a UR in a ROS environment, it would be nice if we could avoid including anti-patterns in it.

@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented Nov 14, 2019

We consider this more of an easy-access power-functionality instead of something out of the box.

Unfortunately I expect this -- ie: raw values from RTDE recipies -- to become the default way people will start interacting with the driver over a ROS API.

As I believe one of the goals of this driver is to be an example of how to properly integrate a UR in a ROS environment, it would be nice if we could avoid including anti-patterns in it.

You are probably right... Thanks for never letting me get away with laziness :-)

We'll take that into consideration and improve this PR.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Contributor

You are probably right... Thanks for never letting me get away with laziness :-)

That was not my intention, I don't want to be a gatekeeper here.

It's easy for me to write "this is not a nice solution", but it would be nice if I could provide alternatives then.

Perhaps an issue where the requirements and constraints could be listed could be used to drive some discussion?

Dynamic message generation would be possible, as would .msg generation based on RTDE recipies. At the very least we should probably try to use appropriate messages from geometry_msgs for certain types of data (ie: Vector3 and friends).

@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented Nov 14, 2019

You are probably right... Thanks for never letting me get away with laziness :-)

That was not my intention, I don't want to be a gatekeeper here.

I meant that in a positive way. The main reason we implemented it this was was laziness on implementing this for each message field. This dropped out of an internal requirement rather than belonging to the original plan.

At the very least we should probably try to use appropriate messages from geometry_msgs for certain types of data (ie: Vector3 and friends).

We've been discussing a bit and also came to this conclusion. We would leave simple datatypes as is, e.g. actual_main_voltage (double), use geometry_msgs where feasible and custom messages for things such as runtime_state, robot_status_bits, etc. where the integer representation has a certain meaning.

@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented Nov 18, 2019

So, we took the time to have a closer look at all the published data from RTDE:

rtde_to_ros_datatypes.xlsx

Any thoughts on this?

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Contributor

gavanderhoorn commented Nov 18, 2019

Markdown version:

RTDE datatypes to ROS
Name UR-Datatype Comment Versioning ROS Datatype Comment Comment 2
timestamp DOUBLE Time elapsed since the controller was started [s] Introduced in version std_msgs/Time
target_q VECTOR6D Target joint positions custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointPosition
target_qd VECTOR6D Target joint velocities custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointVelocity
target_qdd VECTOR6D Target joint accelerations custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointAccelerations
target_current VECTOR6D Target joint currents custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointCurrents
target_moment VECTOR6D Target joint moments (torques) custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointTorques
actual_q VECTOR6D Actual joint positions custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointPosition
actual_qd VECTOR6D Actual joint velocities custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointVelocity
actual_current VECTOR6D Actual joint currents custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointAccelerations
joint_control_output VECTOR6D Joint control currents custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointCurrents
actual_TCP_pose VECTOR6D Actual Cartesian coordinates of the tool: (x,y,z,rx,ry,rz), where rx, ry and rz is a rotation vector representation of the tool orientation geometry_msgs/Pose
actual_TCP_speed VECTOR6D Actual speed of the tool given in Cartesian coordinates geometry_msgs/Twist
actual_TCP_force VECTOR6D Generalized forces in the TCP geometry_msgs/Wrench Already published through ROS Control
target_TCP_pose VECTOR6D Target Cartesian coordinates of the tool: (x,y,z,rx,ry,rz), where rx, ry and rz is a rotation vector representation of the tool orientation geometry_msgs/Pose
target_TCP_speed VECTOR6D Target speed of the tool given in Cartesian coordinates geometry_msgs/Twist
actual_digital_input_bits UINT64 Current state of the digital inputs. 0-7: Standard, 8-15: Configurable, 16-17: Tool ur_msgs/IOStates already published
joint_temperatures VECTOR6D Temperature of each joint in degrees Celsius custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointTemperatures Use sensor_msgs/Temperature as underlying type
actual_execution_time DOUBLE Controller real-time thread execution time std_msgs/Time
robot_mode INT32 Robot mode Please see Remote Control Via TCP/IP - 16496 ur_dashboards_msgs/RobotMode -> Should be moved to ur_msgs
joint_mode VECTOR6INT32 Joint control modes Please see Remote Control Via TCP/IP - 16496 custom_msg -> should be established inside ur_msgs
safety_mode INT32 Safety mode Please see Remote Control Via TCP/IP - 16496 ur_dashboard_msgs/SafetyMode -> Should be moved to ur_msgs
safety_status INT32 Safety ststus 3.10.0/5.4.0 custom_msg -> should be established inside ur_msgs
actual_tool_accelerometer VECTOR3D Tool x, y and z accelerometer values geometry_msgs/Vector3
speed_scaling DOUBLE Speed scaling of the trajectory limiter std_msgs/Float64
target_speed_fraction DOUBLE Target speed fraction std_msgs/Float64
actual_momentum DOUBLE Norm of Cartesian linear momentum std_msgs/Float64
actual_main_voltage DOUBLE Safety Control Board: Main voltage std_msgs/Float64
actual_robot_voltage DOUBLE Safety Control Board: Robot voltage (48V) std_msgs/Float64
actual_robot_current DOUBLE Safety Control Board: Robot current std_msgs/Float64
actual_joint_voltage VECTOR6D Actual joint voltages custom_msg rtde_msgs/JointVoltages
actual_digital_output_bits UINT64 Current state of the digital outputs. 0-7: Standard, 8-15: Configurable, 16-17: Tool ur_msgs/IOStates already published
runtime_state UINT32 Program state custom_msg -> should be established inside ur_msgs
elbow_position VECTOR3D Position of robot elbow in Cartesian Base Coordinates 3.5.0/5.0.0 geometry_msgs/Vector3
elbow_velocity VECTOR3D Velocity of robot elbow in Cartesian Base Coordinates 3.5.0/5.0.0 geometry_msgs/Vector3
robot_status_bits UINT32 Bits 0-3: Is power on | Is program running | Is teach button pressed | Is power button pressed custom_msg -> should be established inside ur_msgs
safety_status_bits UINT32 Bits 0-10: Is normal mode | Is reduced mode | | Is protective stopped | Is recovery mode | Is safeguard stopped | Is system emergency stopped | Is robot emergency stopped | Is emergency stopped | Is violation | Is fault | Is stopped due to safety custom_msg -> should be established inside ur_msgs
analog_io_types UINT32 Bits 0-3: analog input 0 | analog input 1 | analog output 0 | analog output 1, {0=current[A], 1=voltage[V]} ur_msgs/IOStates already published
standard_analog_input0 DOUBLE Standard analog input 0 [A or V] ur_msgs/IOStates already published
standard_analog_input1 DOUBLE Standard analog input 1 [A or V] ur_msgs/IOStates already published
standard_analog_output0 DOUBLE Standard analog output 0 [A or V] ur_msgs/IOStates already published
standard_analog_output1 DOUBLE Standard analog output 1 [A or V] ur_msgs/IOStates already published
io_current DOUBLE I/O current [A] std_msgs/Float64
euromap67_input_bits UINT32 Euromap67 input bits custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital Not optimal but merging these into one common message would break the name?factory?msg pipeline
euromap67_output_bits UINT32 Euromap67 output bits custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital
euromap67_24V_voltage DOUBLE Euromap 24V voltage [V] std_msgs/Float64
euromap67_24V_current DOUBLE Euromap 24V current [A] std_msgs/Float64
tool_mode UINT32 Tool mode Please see Remote Control Via TCP/IP - 16496 ur_msgs/ToolData already published
tool_analog_input_types UINT32 Output domain {0=current[A], 1=voltage[V]} Bits 0-1: tool_analog_input_0 | tool_analog_input_1 ur_msgs/ToolData already published
tool_analog_input0 DOUBLE Tool analog input 0 [A or V] ur_msgs/ToolData already published
tool_analog_input1 DOUBLE Tool analog input 1 [A or V] ur_msgs/ToolData already published
tool_output_voltage INT32 Tool output voltage [V] ur_msgs/ToolData already published
tool_output_current DOUBLE Tool current [A] ur_msgs/ToolData already published
tool_temperature DOUBLE Tool temperature in degrees Celsius ur_msgs/ToolData already published
tcp_force_scalar DOUBLE TCP force scalar [N] std_msgs/Float64
output_bit_registers0_to_31 UINT32 General purpose bits custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital Not optimal but merging these into one common message would break the name?factory?msg pipeline
output_bit_registers32_to_63 UINT32 General purpose bits custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital
output_bit_register_X BOOL 64 general purpose bits X: [64..127] - The upper range of the boolean output registers can be used by external RTDE clients (i.e URCAPS). 3.9.0 / 5.3.0 std_msgs/Bool
output_int_register_X INT32 48 general purpose integer registers X: [0..23] - The lower range of the integer output registers is reserved for FieldBus/PLC interface usage. X: [24..47] - The upper range of the integer output registers can be used by external RTDE clients (i.e URCAPS). [0..23] 3.4.0 [24..47] 3.9.0 / 5.3.0 std_msgs/Int32
output_double_register_X DOUBLE 48 general purpose double registers X: [0..23] - The lower range of the double output registers is reserved for FieldBus/PLC interface usage. X: [24..47] - The upper range of the double output registers can be used by external RTDE clients (i.e URCAPS). [0..23] 3.4.0 [24..47] 3.9.0 / 5.3.0 std_msgs/Float64
input_bit_registers0_to_31 UINT32 General purpose bits This range of the boolean output registers is reserved for FieldBus/PLC interface usage. 3.4.0 custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital Not optimal but merging these into one common message would break the name?factory?msg pipeline
input_bit_registers32_to_63 UINT32 General purpose bits This range of the boolean output registers is reserved for FieldBus/PLC interface usage. 3.4.0 custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital
input_bit_register_x BOOL 64 general purpose bits X: [64..127] - The upper range of the boolean output registers can be used by external RTDE clients (i.e URCAPS). 3.9.0 / 5.3.0 std_msgs/Bool
input_int_register_x[0 .. 48] INT32 48 general purpose integer registers X: [0..23] - The lower range of the integer input registers is reserved for FieldBus/PLC interface usage. X: [24..47] - The upper range of the integer input registers can be used by external RTDE clients (i.e URCAPS). [0..23] 3.4.0 [24..47] 3.9.0 / 5.3.0 std_msgs/Int32
input_double_register_x[0 .. 48] DOUBLE 48 general purpose double registers X: [0..23] - The lower range of the double input registers is reserved for FieldBus/PLC interface usage. X: [24..47] - The upper range of the double input registers can be used by external RTDE clients (i.e URCAPS). [0..23] 3.4.0 [24..47] 3.9.0 / 5.3.0 std_msgs/Float64
tool_output_mode UINT8 The current output mode 5.2.0 custom_msg -> should be established inside ur_msgs
tool_digital_output0_mode UINT8 The current mode of digital output 0 5.2.0 custom_msg -> should be established inside ur_msgs
tool_digital_output1_mode UINT8 The current mode of digital output 1 5.2.0 custom_msg -> should be established inside ur_msgs
input_bit_registers0_to_31 UINT32 General purpose bits (input read back) 3.4.0 custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital Not optimal but merging these into one common message would break the name?factory?msg pipeline
input_bit_registers32_to_63 UINT32 General purpose bits (input read back) 3.4.0 custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital
input_int_register_X INT32 24 general purpose integer registers (input read back) X: [0..23] 3.4.0 custom_msg Array of ur_msgs/Digital
input_double_register_X DOUBLE 24 general purpose double registers (input read back) X: [0..23] custom_msg double

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Contributor

Some first comments:

  1. publish fields like target_q, target_qd and target_moment in a sensor_msgs/JointState on a target_joint_states topic (similar to Publish target joint states ros-industrial/ur_modern_driver#341)
  2. same for actual fields
  3. the qdd and current would require a custom message unfortunately.
  4. it might be nice to general the "target" fields to all be published inside a target namespace
  5. all Pose publishers could also be published as TF frames instead. That would make using the data for transforms easier (see also Publishing Cartesian frame 'data': cartesian state controller? ros-controls/ros_control#372)
  6. re: joint_temperatures: ur_modern_driver also publishes these, but uses plain sensor_msgs/Temperature (fixed in Use link names in temperature messages ros-industrial/ur_modern_driver#320). RViz can render Temperature messages in-situ if a valid TF frame is set for frame_id in the Header. Perhaps not using a custom message here would be better.
  7. re: actual_execution_time: is this not more of a period? I haven't checked the documentation, but if it is, a std_msgs/Duration may be better. An actual "time" time may be published using sensor_msgs/TimeReference.
  8. re: output_bit_registers0_to_31: not sure I would publish those as arrays of ur_msgs/Digital. That is going to be a lot of elements in that array. Perhaps leaving them as uint32 fields? Or a uint32[]?

@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented Nov 28, 2019

Thank you for your input.

Some first comments:

  1. publish fields like target_q, target_qd and target_moment in a sensor_msgs/JointState on a target_joint_states topic (similar to ros-industrial/ur_modern_driver#341)

From our point of view, this goes against the idea of this PR which is providing an easy interface to request single RTDE fields. Requesting one of the above will require requesting all the others, as well.

  1. same for actual fields

The actual fields are already published through the joint_state controller and are thereby planned to be excluded from separate publishing.

  1. the qdd and current would require a custom message unfortunately.

Yes, as we suggested. But I guess that comment was mainly referring to 1. and 2.

  1. it might be nice to general the "target" fields to all be published inside a target namespace

Same reasoning as 1.

  1. all Pose publishers could also be published as TF frames instead. That would make using the data for transforms easier (see also ros-controls/ros_control#372)

Yes, we could easily publish TF frames, as well. However, I also like the idea of putting this into a separate ros controller...

  1. re: joint_temperatures: ur_modern_driver also publishes these, but uses plain sensor_msgs/Temperature (fixed in ros-industrial/ur_modern_driver#320). RViz can render Temperature messages in-situ if a valid TF frame is set for frame_id in the Header. Perhaps not using a custom message here would be better.

I agree, that would be a better solution.

  1. re: actual_execution_time: is this not more of a period? I haven't checked the documentation, but if it is, a std_msgs/Duration may be better. An actual "time" time may be published using sensor_msgs/TimeReference.

Both suggestions sound superior. We'll do some more investigation and pick the appropriate one from those.

  1. re: output_bit_registers0_to_31: not sure I would publish those as arrays of ur_msgs/Digital. That is going to be a lot of elements in that array. Perhaps leaving them as uint32 fields? Or a uint32[]?

Not sure, if I understand that correctly. Why would there be a lot of elements? It should be exactly 32. Publishing a plain uint32 seems a bit against the statement from #35 (comment), right? Using a uint32[] message also seems a bit counter-intuitive to me, as there are actually boolean values being represented. We could also go for a bool[] message.

@t-schnell
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Initial rework towards new structure/message types is done, should be critically looked over though - some questions about specific data fields remain and I have added them as comments directly in the code.

@macsmitty
Copy link

There is a typo in data_field_publisher.cpp (target_movement should be target_moment).

* \param nh The used ROS node handle
*/
DirectDataPublisher(const std::string& data_field_identifier, ros::NodeHandle& nh)
: data_field_identifier_(data_field_identifier), pub_(nh, "rtde_data/" + data_field_identifier_, 1)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think, I would not factor this in, here. Leave this to the caller that is creating this object. This way, the user would create this with a node handle living in the rtde_data namespace if desired.

* \param nh The used ROS node handle
*/
ArrayDataPublisher(const std::string& data_field_identifier, ros::NodeHandle& nh)
: data_field_identifier_(data_field_identifier), pub_(nh, "rtde_data/" + data_field_identifier_, 1)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same comment about node handle as above

Comment on lines 89 to 129
class JointTemperaturePublisher : public DataFieldPublisher
{
public:
/*!
* \brief Creates a JointTemperaturePublisher object.
*
* \param data_field_identifier The string identifier of the data field to publish
* \param nh The used ROS node handle
*/
JointTemperaturePublisher(const std::string& data_field_identifier, ros::NodeHandle& nh)
: data_field_identifier_(data_field_identifier), pub_(nh, "rtde_data/" + data_field_identifier_, 1)
{
pub_.msg_ = std_msgs::Duration();
}

/*!
* \brief Publishes the relevant data field from a data package.
*
* \param data_package The given data package to publish from
*
* \returns True if the realtime publisher could publish the data.
*/
virtual bool publish(const DataPackage& data_package)
{
if (data_package.getData(data_field_identifier_, data_))
{
if (pub_.trylock())
{
pub_.msg_.data.fromSec(data_);
pub_.unlockAndPublish();
return true;
}
}
return false;
}

private:
double data_;
std::string data_field_identifier_;
realtime_tools::RealtimePublisher<std_msgs::Duration> pub_;
};
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think, this is a copy&paste error, as it is just the timestamp publishing function again. Did you forget to implement this?

Comment on lines 56 to 62
using _bool_publisher = DirectDataPublisher<bool, std_msgs::Bool>;
using _uint8_publisher = DirectDataPublisher<uint8_t, std_msgs::UInt8>;
using _uint32_publisher = DirectDataPublisher<uint32_t, std_msgs::UInt32>;
using _uint64_publisher = DirectDataPublisher<uint64_t, std_msgs::UInt64>;
using _int32_publisher = DirectDataPublisher<int32_t, std_msgs::Int32>;
using _double_publisher = DirectDataPublisher<double, std_msgs::Float64>;
using _string_publisher = DirectDataPublisher<std::string, std_msgs::String>;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why the _-prefix notation?

return std::unique_ptr<DataFieldPublisher>(
new ArrayDataPublisher<double, ur_rtde_msgs::JointCurrents, 6>(data_field_identifier, nh));
}
else if (data_field_identifier == "target_movement")
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
else if (data_field_identifier == "target_movement")
else if (data_field_identifier == "target_moment")

As mentioned by @macsmitty

"actual_digital_input_bits",
"actual_digital_output_bits",
"analog_io_types",
"tool_analog_input_types" };
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

robot_mode and safety_mode should also go here.

<!-- One maintainer tag required, multiple allowed, one person per tag -->
<!-- Example: -->
<!-- <maintainer email="[email protected]">Jane Doe</maintainer> -->
<maintainer email="[email protected]">Tristan Schnell</maintainer>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are you going to actively maintain this? Otherwise it might be good to set me as maintainer while keeping you listed as the author.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<package format="2">
<name>ur_rtde_msgs</name>
<version>0.0.0</version>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A version different to 0 might be nice, although not released, yet.

@orat
Copy link

orat commented May 12, 2020

Hi,

  1. I am missing timestamps in the "data" Topics, e.g. if I get temperatures or Joint angles. I have found the seperate Topic "timestamps" but this does not help. I think the discussion About Heritage from Standard message-types is started and I want only to say that I think it is important to use Standard types to make the timestamps available. My collegue has written a patch for that that I am just testing.
  2. Is it possible to get the correct timestamps from the UR? It Looks that the data is read without timestamps from the UR. This is really a pity.

best regards
Oliver

@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented May 12, 2020

Hi,

  1. I am missing timestamps in the "data" Topics, e.g. if I get temperatures or Joint angles. I have found the seperate Topic "timestamps" but this does not help. I think the discussion About Heritage from Standard message-types is started and I want only to say that I think it is important to use Standard types to make the timestamps available. My collegue has written a patch for that that I am just testing.
  2. Is it possible to get the correct timestamps from the UR? It Looks that the data is read without timestamps from the UR. This is really a pity.

best regards
Oliver

This issue is exactly the (main) reason why this isn't merged, yet.

@xiaohuits
Copy link

Is this still under development? We want to have the actual TCP position data and this PR seems to be what we want.

@orat
Copy link

orat commented Jul 9, 2020

I am just reading the TCP via the topic /ur_hardware_interface/rtde_data/target_TCP_pose. I get a standard messagetype with the position vector and the quaternion describing the orientation. This works fine. But there is no timestamp available. I also tried to change the sample rate without luck. Only streaming with 500Hz works for me.

@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented Jul 10, 2020

Is this still under development? We want to have the actual TCP position data and this PR seems to be what we want.

The actual TCP pose is already available inside the tf system as as tool0_controller.

And yes, this is still on my ToDo-List, it just always gets too much over-prioritized :-(

@RisMmi
Copy link

RisMmi commented Jan 26, 2021

Hello everyone and thank you for your contribution. I am new in ROS and currently involved in a project with an UR3e. I have couple of questions I would be super grateful if you´d help me clarify:

  1. I would like to know, after installing this branch of the package, How do the RTDE variables can be seen/printed and what are the specific names of the topics to which these variables are being sent or saved to?

  2. Also, I would like to know how does this differ from:
    https://github.com/t-schnell/Universal_Robots_ROS_Driver/blob/master/ur_robot_driver/resources/rtde_output_recipe.txt
    And how would it be possible to print or access the RTDE information stated in this last .txt?

Thanks so much in advance for your time and help!

@RisMmi RisMmi mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2021
@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented Jan 27, 2021

Hello everyone and thank you for your contribution. I am new in ROS and currently involved in a project with an UR3e. I have couple of questions I would be super grateful if you´d help me clarify:

  1. I would like to know, after installing this branch of the package, How do the RTDE variables can be seen/printed and what are the specific names of the topics to which these variables are being sent or saved to?
  2. Also, I would like to know how does this differ from:
    https://github.com/t-schnell/Universal_Robots_ROS_Driver/blob/master/ur_robot_driver/resources/rtde_output_recipe.txt
    And how would it be possible to print or access the RTDE information stated in this last .txt?

Thanks so much in advance for your time and help!

When using this branch adding variables to rtde_output_recipe.txt will automatically publish this data on rtde_data/<variable_name>.

@RisMmi
Copy link

RisMmi commented Jan 27, 2021

Hello everyone and thank you for your contribution. I am new in ROS and currently involved in a project with an UR3e. I have couple of questions I would be super grateful if you´d help me clarify:

  1. I would like to know, after installing this branch of the package, How do the RTDE variables can be seen/printed and what are the specific names of the topics to which these variables are being sent or saved to?
  2. Also, I would like to know how does this differ from:
    https://github.com/t-schnell/Universal_Robots_ROS_Driver/blob/master/ur_robot_driver/resources/rtde_output_recipe.txt
    And how would it be possible to print or access the RTDE information stated in this last .txt?

Thanks so much in advance for your time and help!

When using this branch adding variables to rtde_output_recipe.txt will automatically publish this data on rtde_data/<variable_name>.

@fmauch Thank you so much for your response. What about the variables that are already specified in rtde_output_recipe.txt inside the official package, Can I access to them somehow (either through topics or by printing them in the terminal) without using this branch? Thanks again!

@fmauch
Copy link
Collaborator

fmauch commented Jan 27, 2021

@RisMmi Most data is available through running controllers. You can try running rosnode info /ur_hardware_interface to see all topics published by the driver.

@github-actions
Copy link

This PR hasn't made any progress for quite some time and will be closed soon. Please comment if it is still relevant.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Stale
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants