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

Fix ompl use of simplify #559

Conversation

Levi-Armstrong
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 31, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.83%. Comparing base (f98f4d4) to head (69a310d).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #559   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.83%   77.83%           
=======================================
  Files         250      250           
  Lines       13099    13100    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        10196    10197    +1     
  Misses       2903     2903           

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

@Levi-Armstrong Levi-Armstrong merged commit 99f8b97 into tesseract-robotics:master Dec 31, 2024
12 of 17 checks passed
@Levi-Armstrong Levi-Armstrong deleted the bugfix/fix-ompl-simplify branch December 31, 2024 02:35
// Now try to simplify the trajectory to get it under the requested number of output states
// The interpolate function only executes if the current number of states is less than the requested
if (!solver_config.simplify)
simple_setup.simplifySolution();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we calling simplify if the user said they did not want to simplify?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The original implementation was to try and get the number of states back to the number of interpolation states, though I see your point and okay with removing this here. I will create a PR removing it.

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.

2 participants