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

Fix the controller deactivation on the control cycles returning ERROR #1756

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

saikishor
Copy link
Member

Right now, we are just deactivating the controllers when we have an ÈRROR` returned from the hardware or from the controller update cycles, but there could be 2 different issues with this approach:

  • When deactivating the controller in EFFORT mode it is not safe as any unsafe command it left in the interface and the hardware continues to maintain it. It is dangerous in some situations
  • When performing this deactivation, the consecutive activation fails as the resources are currently occupied from the hardware point of view.

This PR proposes a solution for the above issues and a test is added to check for the proper functionality

@saikishor saikishor changed the title Fix the controller deactivation on the control cycles returnin ERROR Fix the controller deactivation on the control cycles returning ERROR Sep 18, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 18, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 88.46154% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (master@4eabd25). Learn more about missing BASE report.
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
..._components/test_actuator_exclusive_interfaces.cpp 83.82% 10 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ontroller_manager/test/test_release_interfaces.cpp 93.10% 4 Missing ⚠️
controller_manager/src/controller_manager.cpp 90.00% 0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #1756   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   87.27%           
=========================================
  Files             ?      122           
  Lines             ?    12253           
  Branches          ?     1093           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    10694           
  Misses            ?     1163           
  Partials          ?      396           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 87.27% <88.46%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
controller_manager/src/controller_manager.cpp 77.62% <90.00%> (ø)
...ontroller_manager/test/test_release_interfaces.cpp 90.35% <93.10%> (ø)
..._components/test_actuator_exclusive_interfaces.cpp 83.82% <83.82%> (ø)

@christophfroehlich
Copy link
Contributor

Could you please briefly summarize your solution for me?

@saikishor
Copy link
Member Author

Could you please briefly summarize your solution for me?

@christophfroehlich sure!

Right now, we have the above issues because the prepare_command_switch and perform_command_swirch are not called when deactivating the controller. So, the hardware is not aware of the resources not being used any more.

Now, I've added prepare_command_switch and perform_command_switch, so that the hardware will be aware of the changes and act accordingly. In our case, if the robot is EFFORT, FORCE or TORQUE control mode, we change the actuator to IDLE mode, if there are no more interfaces to activate for those motors. This way it is safer.

Moreover, as now the hardware is aware of the deactivated resources, when you try to activate the same controller again or a different controller that uses different resources of that joint, it will be able to properly activate the controller.

Copy link
Contributor

@christophfroehlich christophfroehlich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the explanation. The changes and the test looks fine for me.

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Oct 16, 2024

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @saikishor?

@@ -2466,6 +2486,26 @@ controller_interface::return_type ControllerManager::update(
RCLCPP_ERROR(
get_logger(), "Activating fallback controllers : [ %s]", controllers_string.c_str());
}
std::vector<std::string> failed_controller_interfaces, fallback_controller_interfaces;
failed_controller_interfaces.reserve(500);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Isn't this in the update method? Can we do this ahead of time?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@destogl I was handling it in a different PR: #1801

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants