Add joint limiter interface plugins to enforce limits defined in the URDF

[saikishor]

This PR includes the changes of the PR from @destogl #971, and on top of that it extends the proposed methods to be able to integrate and be able to provide an interface that will allow enforcing the joint limits in position, velocity, effort, acceleration, etc. The proposed interface can accept different types of data in the enforce methods with the help of templating and this can be helpful to extend to different applications in the future.

This PR is done as a part of #1466 to be able to integrate the limiters within the ResourceManager

Closes #971

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.98408% with 63 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 87.78%. Comparing base (0433960) to head (2f91440).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...s/include/joint_limits/joint_limiter_interface.hpp	32.50%	23 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
joint_limits/src/joint_soft_limiter.cpp	87.50%	12 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
joint_limits/src/joint_range_limiter.cpp	84.12%	5 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
joint_limits/src/joint_limits_helpers.cpp	91.30%	2 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
joint_limits/test/test_joint_soft_limiter.cpp	99.63%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...limits/include/joint_limits/joint_soft_limiter.hpp	92.85%	1 Missing ⚠️
joint_limits/test/test_joint_limiter.hpp	98.18%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1526      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.83%   87.78%   +0.94%     
==========================================
  Files         121      129       +8     
  Lines       11542    12730    +1188     
  Branches     1054     1104      +50     
==========================================
+ Hits        10023    11175    +1152     
- Misses       1144     1167      +23     
- Partials      375      388      +13     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	87.78% <94.98%> (+0.94%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...mits/include/joint_limits/joint_limiter_struct.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
joint_limits/include/joint_limits/joint_limits.hpp	97.22% <100.00%> (-2.78%)	⬇️
.../include/joint_limits/joint_saturation_limiter.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
joint_limits/src/joint_saturation_limiter.cpp	85.63% <100.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
joint_limits/test/test_joint_range_limiter.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...oint_limits/test/test_joint_saturation_limiter.cpp	91.23% <ø> (+0.28%)	⬆️
...oint_limits/test/test_joint_saturation_limiter.hpp	96.55% <100.00%> (ø)
...limits/include/joint_limits/joint_soft_limiter.hpp	92.85% <92.85%> (ø)
joint_limits/test/test_joint_limiter.hpp	98.18% <98.18%> (ø)
joint_limits/test/test_joint_soft_limiter.cpp	99.63% <99.63%> (ø)
... and 4 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[mergify]

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @saikishor?

[mergify]

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @saikishor?

[mateusmenezes95]

I have a suggestion from a code reader's point of view. What do you think about creating a struct with the min and max members instead? Using std::pair results later in the use of first and second accessors, which does not describe the purpose of the variable.

[saikishor]

Hello!

As these are helper methods alone. I want to keep them simple. Making a new struct and passing them around is something I wanted to avoid. That's the main reason I avoided using such new structs

[mergify]

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @saikishor?

[destogl]

I think this is not needed anymore. Am I right? Do we want to get here limits from URDF? This might make sense to parse URDF limits also in the controller if this are required.

[destogl]

Don't we have to consider here position and velocity limits too?