API review

Proposer: Wim Meeussen

Present at review:

• List reviewers

Question / concerns / comments

Enter your thoughts on the API and any questions / concerns you have here. Please sign your name. Anything you want to address in the API review should be marked down here before the start of the meeting.

Stu

• The tuck arms result should have bool types rather than uint8. The names should indicate what actually happened (something like left_is_tucked, left_succeeded, etc...)

• This node should have a parameter per output action, which specify the full path to the output action. Perhaps r_joint_trajectory_action and l_joint_trajectory_action? Consider: by specifying the full paths of the output actions, you could start up tuckarm and send the trajectories through actions which perform smoothing and then following.

• The documentation has this line: "The current implementation does not allow you to tuck one arm and untuck the other arm in one single call to the action." We could change the goal action to support requesting this.

Sachin

• Can tuck_arms deal more sanely with motor reset? Right now, it just shoots forward like crazy as soon as the motors are switched back on - maybe have it listen to the motor reset, preempt the controller and then resend the command after the motors come on (or time out and fail after a while if they don't).

Meeting agenda

To be filled out by proposer based on comments gathered during API review period

Conclusion

Package status change mark change manifest)

• Action items that need to be taken.

• Major issues that need to be resolved

• deparameterize joint_trajectory_action Same for IK review

• change message to have two bools right_tucked left_tucked, return the same message