Closed nhatao closed 9 months ago
Merging #719 (8b992e2) into master (f1720e0) will decrease coverage by
0.34%
. The diff coverage is66.66%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #719 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.65% 88.32% -0.34%
==========================================
Files 60 60
Lines 4435 4444 +9
==========================================
- Hits 3932 3925 -7
- Misses 503 519 +16
Files Changed | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
...ce/include/costmap_cspace/costmap_3d_layer/plain.h | 60.00% <0.00%> (-6.67%) |
:arrow_down: |
...nclude/costmap_cspace/costmap_3d_layer/footprint.h | 87.94% <66.66%> (-1.61%) |
:arrow_down: |
costmap_cspace/src/costmap_3d.cpp | 67.33% <100.00%> (+0.21%) |
:arrow_up: |
cutoff
sounds a bit like a hard threshold so it might be a bit misleading. If I understood correctly the intention behind this new parameter, its is to reduce the decay of the cost with distance from an obstacle cell e.g. a high value makes the cost decay slower. Maybe we could rename it something like cost_spread_weight
, cost_spread_factor
or cost_spread_decay
(in this case we have to flip the current implementation to be 100 - cutoff_cost_
.
How about linear_spread_min_cost
?
How about linear_spread_min_cost?
I think this is better, especially with the diagram.
with the diagram?
Sorry I meant the diagram from the PR description.
I meant to put the diagram in the PR description to README
linear_spread_min_cost
is the cost of edge grids spread from an occupied grid. (See Costmap3dLayerOutput.LinearSpreadMinCost) This parameter can make the costs of grids near obstacles higher to avoid other costs such as preferences overriding the costs of these grids.