API review

Proposer: Stu

Re-review for inclusion into common_msgs.

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.


No major concerns - I think we discussed the structure at length and it presents a pretty good/effective compromise. Comments (mostly documentation-wise) below.

  • Can we document the rules for filling out the message:
    • points iterate over time.
    • time_from_start may be zero?? But not negative?
    • points must be ordered over time (increasing time_from_start)??
    • Dimensions of pos/vel/acc must match joint_names.
    • You may specify pos or pos&vel or pos&vel&acc?

    • Does each joint need to make the same choice of pos vs pos/vel vs pos/vel/acc?
  • I still find it funny to include a frame_id (which has no meaning here??). But appreciate that's just the standard.
  • The time stamp also has no meaning??? Or does it provide the start time? If so, I would say that's a little hidden and prefer an explicit field.
  • The start time/ordering/method for inclusion (append or overwrite another trajectory) seem to be outside this message. Pointers or comments in the documentation might make that easier to understand.
  • If you want to get carried away, documenting that no point at zero time from start will allow a smooth transition.


  • no concerns, probably just add the documentation (on the package page) that Gunter requested and we are done.


  • Fine


  • no issues here


  • This still looks good. The original review had been done thoroughly.


  • Add to common_msgs

Wiki: trajectory_msgs/Reviews/Adding_To_common_msgs_2010-10-11_API_Review (last edited 2010-10-29 23:16:51 by wim)