Python bidings for the measured force contact #251
Conversation
bindings/python/CMakeLists.txt
Outdated
| @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ set(${PYWRAP}_SOURCES | |||
| contacts/contact-6d.cpp | |||
| contacts/contact-point.cpp | |||
| contacts/contact-two-frame-positions.cpp | |||
| contacts/measured-6Dwrench | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
missing file extension
I would rename the file following the naming convention of the project.
| @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ | |||
| // | |||
| // Copyright (c) 2022 CNRS INRIA LORIA | |||
| @@ -273,6 +276,10 @@ struct InvDynPythonVisitor | |||
| const solvers::HQPOutput& sol) { | |||
| return self.getContactForces(name, sol); | |||
| } | |||
| static bool addMeasuredForce(T& self, | |||
| contacts::Measured6Dwrench measured_force) { | |||
|
|
||
| inline void exposeContact() { | ||
| exposeContact6d(); | ||
| exposeContactPoint(); | ||
| exposeContactTwoFramePositions(); | ||
| exposeMeasured6Dwrench(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency with the already existing "Contact6d" I would prefer using "Measured6dWrench", without capitalizing the "d" after 6.
| @@ -21,19 +21,22 @@ | |||
| #include "tsid/bindings/python/contacts/contact-6d.hpp" | |||
| #include "tsid/bindings/python/contacts/contact-point.hpp" | |||
| #include "tsid/bindings/python/contacts/contact-two-frame-positions.hpp" | |||
| #include "tsid/bindings/python/contacts/measured-6Dwrench.hpp" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Even here, for consistency, I would rename this file "measured-6d-wrench.hpp"
|
Hi, |
|
You are right that we already have inconsistencies. However, we should at least avoid adding more inconsistencies to the code. If you also wanna fix the naming inconsistencies of the 3d force that'd be an added value for this PR. |
|
For now I fixed the inconsistent naming only on the bindings side |
Hi,
I noticed there was no python bindings for the measured force contacts, so I implemented them following the recommendation made for a similar issue.
I added the measure6Dwrench contact type to the bindings, the addMeasuredForce binding in the formulation and a test script that checks the creation of this contact, the setting of its value and its addition to the inverse dynamics formulation.
Let me know if it is ok or if you have any suggestions,
Have a nice day