xArm-Developer / xarm_ros2

ROS2 developer packages for robotic products from UFACTORY
https://www.ufactory.cc/pages/xarm
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
127 stars 77 forks source link

About /joint_states publishers #78

Open mcres opened 4 months ago

mcres commented 4 months ago

Executing the launch file needed to control a robot, e.g.

ros2 launch xarm_moveit_config uf850_moveit_fake.launch.py

generates two Nodes that publish to the /joint_states topic:

  1. /uf_robot_fake_hw, which is defined here.
  2. /joint_state_publisher, which in the case of the previous launch file is defined here.
Click to see the full rosgraph ![rosgraph_xarm](https://github.com/xArm-Developer/xarm_ros2/assets/14854080/23e8c067-8b4e-4c09-9bdd-83f964d4bb27)

With the previous in mind, I'd like to clarify the following aspects:

  1. Why is the uf_robot_hardware/UFRobotFakeSystemHardware ros2_control plugin used, instead of simply using mock_components/GenericSystem? Is there any substantial difference?
  2. Why is the joint_state_publisher package used, instead of just spawning a joint_state_broadcaster ros2_controller? The fact of those controllers being defined — e.g. here, but not used stresses this question.

Apart from those questions, the motivation of this ticket comes from the fact that while integrating the Robotiq 2F-85 gripper, I had to replace the joint_state_publisher and spawn the joint_state_broadcaster instead. Otherwise, action requests to the robotiq_gripper_controller action server would lead to no change in the gripper's position or whatsoever. After performing that change, I am able to ros2_control both robot and the Robotiq gripper.

vimior commented 4 months ago

@mcres Sorry for causing you trouble.

The use of uf_robot_hardware/UFRobotFakeSystemHardware was decided because the early development function was not stable. Sorry, I did not follow up with ros2_control in time. We will use fake_components/GenericSystem or mock_components/GenericSystem for different branches in the next update.

Regarding joint_state_broadcaster, I am sorry that it is indeed defined but not used. Instead, joint_state_publisher is used. Thank you for your pointing out. We will use joint_state_broadcaster instead of joint_state_publisher in the next update.

Thank you for your support and suggestions.

mcres commented 4 months ago

@vimior thank you for promptly clarifying the details and addressing the feedback!