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

footprint_clearing_enabled for more (or all) layers #4277

Closed
tonynajjar opened this issue Apr 25, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

footprint_clearing_enabled for more (or all) layers #4277

tonynajjar opened this issue Apr 25, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@tonynajjar
Copy link
Contributor

Spinoff from #4271 (comment)

Feature request

Feature description

footprint_clearing_enabled is only a parameter of the obstacle layer. it's also in the voxel layer but doesn't seem to be used. I think it would make sense if this parameter was also implemented for the static layer. Going further, we can also argue for it to be at top-level costmap such that it applies to all layers/

Implementation considerations

@SteveMacenski
Copy link
Member

it's also in the voxel layer but doesn't seem to be used

The voxel layer derives from the obstacle layer and they share the same updateFootprint function which uses the parameter, so the voxel layer should work :-) Do you see it not working or is that based on code review?

Since its a param, I have no issue with it being applied to the static layer as well! 😄

Please submit a PR and that should be easy to merge

@tonynajjar
Copy link
Contributor Author

tonynajjar commented Apr 25, 2024

Do you see it not working or is that based on code review?

I'm wrong then, was purely code review (after I found 'clearing_layers' not used I assumed there is more 😬)

I have no issue with it being applied to the static layer as well

What do you think about a param to apply it to the whole costmap instead of by layer? I haven't checked if that's easily feasible but I assume so

@SteveMacenski
Copy link
Member

I think we should leave it on a layer by layer basis for granularity of controls. I suppose we could offer both though like we have for some settings. That would be fine!

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants