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

Joint state controller extra joints #181

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 30, 2015
Merged

Conversation

adolfo-rt
Copy link
Member

Fixes #87.

Adolfo Rodriguez Tsouroukdissian added 3 commits June 25, 2015 11:36
Allow to optionally specify a set of extra joints for state publishing that
are not contained in the JointStateInterface associated to the controller.

The state of these joints can be specified via ROS parameters, and remains
constant over time.
@adolfo-rt
Copy link
Member Author

Please refer to the test suite or Doxy doc for examples of extra joint specifications. If merged, the ros wiki entry can be updated accordingly.

@adolfo-rt adolfo-rt changed the title Jsc extra joints Joint state controller extra joints Jun 25, 2015
@mikepurvis
Copy link

+1

@bmagyar
Copy link
Member

bmagyar commented Jun 26, 2015

+1
On 25 Jun 2015 18:20, "Mike Purvis" [email protected] wrote:

+1


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#181 (comment)
.

@adolfo-rt
Copy link
Member Author

Merging, thanks for the input.

adolfo-rt pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2015
Joint state controller extra joints
@adolfo-rt adolfo-rt merged commit c5ef031 into indigo-devel Jun 30, 2015
@adolfo-rt adolfo-rt deleted the jsc-extra-joints branch June 30, 2015 14:48
@paulbovbel paulbovbel mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2016
jordi-pages pushed a commit to pal-robotics-forks/ros_controllers that referenced this pull request Sep 22, 2016
Joint state controller extra joints

Backport of ros-controls#181
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