Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
[Servo] Change planning frame to base frame of active joint subgroup #2515
[Servo] Change planning frame to base frame of active joint subgroup #2515
Changes from all commits
09eb17e
b741853
f003315
5612d88
7601fc6
0c134b7
b20b14e
daf5f6f
85a382f
b193aa4
db97165
0ad1d85
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we avoid the pointer here and below and just do
const moveit::core::RobotState &robot_state
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the robot state which is extracted from
already returns in pointer form, so is it fine to keep as is? I don't particularly want to dereference what's already there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's fine if this is only used in this context. If we ever put it somewhere more general I think we should just take the const&.
shared_ptr
is viral, it easily spreads everywhere. If this takes ashared_ptr
, it can't really can't be used unless you have ashared_ptr
already. Whereas if this takes aconst&
, you can call it directly with aRobotState
object, but also with ashared_ptr
orunique_ptr
by derefencing, so it's more usable.