Closed gchenfc closed 10 months ago
Simple reason why I disapprove: I need to be able to mix GTSAM and GTD keys. The IMU factors need GTSAM keys and they don't have time information built into them. :)
Yeah this PR is closing off GTD to integration with other libraries. Not a good idea :(
Yeah this PR is closing off GTD to integration with other libraries. Not a good idea :(
Agreed for now. Please let’s discuss it in our meeting before doing anything about this. @gchenfc Please stick with the PR that we discussed without adding other elements into it?
Yeah this PR is closing off GTD to integration with other libraries. Not a good idea :(
Agreed for an hour. Please let’s discuss it in our meeting before doing anything about us. @gchenfc Please stick with the PR that we discussed without adding other elements into it?
By the way, I am not saying this is a bad idea, I’d like to learn more about the whole discussion before Doing anything. I can provide Context with respect to GTSAM and help evaluate @varunagrawal ’s concerns.
Yeah this PR is closing off GTD to integration with other libraries. Not a good idea :(
Agreed for an hour. Please let’s discuss it in our meeting before doing anything about us. @gchenfc Please stick with the PR that we discussed without adding other elements into it?
By the way, I am not saying this is a bad idea, I’d like to learn more about the whole discussion before Doing anything. I can provide Context with respect to GTSAM and help evaluate @varunagrawal ’s concerns.
PS PS should be “agreed for now” :-)
Yes we can discuss this later.
I just created this PR because I was halfway through a big rebase off #286 separating out changes that weren't relevant to that PR so I decided to finish that rebase and create this PR with it.
Then basing #291 off this branch was a mistake but I can fix that later.
I merged master and looks like all the changes here have already been pushed into the master branch. Hence closing.
This is basically a continuation of #217
Previously, factors took raw keys as arguments. However, the correct keys can be extracted from the
joint
object passed in. I believe allowing these raw key constructors is unsafe and this PR is being a little bit Nazi-like in banning this construction. For example,I propose we ban the first (commented out) version to force users to use the proper
DynamicsSymbol
system.I also took out the private constructors since I don't really see what utility they offer besides just making the reader jump back and forth more, but I can add them back if desired.
I know @varunagrawal took issue with removing the old constructors in #286, opting instead to keep the old constructors in addition to the new constructors, but I believe (1) this is more thematic with #217 and (2) explicitly disallowing the "raw key" versions should make things safer and less bug-prone.