Support `<gazebo_ros>` in `package.xml` exports #492

azeey · 2024-02-02T19:28:02Z

🎉 New feature

Summary

This copies the implementation from gazebo_ros_paths.py to provide a way for packages to set resource paths from package.xml.

e.g.  <export>
          <gazebo_ros gazebo_model_path="${prefix}/models"/>
          <gazebo_ros gazebo_media_path="${prefix}/models"/>
      </export>

The value of gazebo_model_path and gazebo_media_path is appended to GZ_SIM_RESOURCE_PATH The value of plugin_path appended to GZ_SIM_SYSTEM_PLUGIN_PATH.

This will make transition from Gazebo Classic easier.

Test it

Checklist

Signed all commits for DCO
Added tests
Added example and/or tutorial
Updated documentation (as needed)
Updated migration guide (as needed)
Consider updating Python bindings (if the library has them)
codecheck passed (See contributing)
All tests passed (See test coverage)
While waiting for a review on your PR, please help review another open pull request to support the maintainers

Note to maintainers: Remember to use Squash-Merge and edit the commit message to match the pull request summary while retaining Signed-off-by messages.

This copies the implementation from `gazebo_ros_paths.py` to provide a way for packages to set resource paths from `package.xml`. ``` e.g. <export> <gazebo_ros gazebo_model_path="${prefix}/models"/> <gazebo_ros gazebo_media_path="${prefix}/models"/> </export> ``` The value of `gazebo_model_path` and `gazebo_media_path` is appended to `GZ_SIM_RESOURCE_PATH` The value of `plugin_path` appended to `GZ_SIM_SYSTEM_PLUGIN_PATH` Signed-off-by: Addisu Z. Taddese <[email protected]>

ahcorde

it might be worth it to add a tutorial about this or small doc about this.

Do you have plans to forward port this to Iron and Rolling?

azeey · 2024-02-05T15:33:53Z

it might be worth it to add a tutorial about this or small doc about this.

Good point!

Do you have plans to forward port this to Iron and Rolling?

Yes, I'll cherry-pick this to Iron and Rolling. I was going to start on Rolling first, but I wanted to make sure the humble branch got the IGN_* variables modified as well.

j-rivero

Just commenting here what we spoke in the weekly meeting: let's try to create a tutorial that documents all the options of injecting the paths available and point from this code to the user to specify that this is not the easiest way or the proffered way with a pointer to the tutorial.

j-rivero · 2024-02-06T16:50:57Z

ros_gz_sim/launch/gz_sim.launch.py.in

+                        if 'gazebo_model_path' in export.attributes:
+                            xml_path = export.attributes['gazebo_model_path']
+                            xml_path = xml_path.replace('${prefix}', package_share_path)
+                            gazebo_model_path.append(xml_path)


I think that one of the most frustrating issue for newcomers and people dealing with Gazebo + ROS integration is to badly configure the asset directories assuming random paths that are not the ones really processed here. I would like to use the PR to improve this situation.

How about adding a bit of sanity checks before the .append( calls in this file that can emit warning/errors for the user to check/fix, some ideas:

The xml_path in a vast majority of the cases needs to be an existing non empty directory.

For the gazebo_model_path, we can probably scan for the expected subdirectory structure with at least one .sdf and one .config.

For gazebo_plugin_path we can probably expect that the user hosts at least one .so or one binary file.

I looked at doing this but the way this works, it's actually looking at all the packages in the system, not just the individual package the user might be interested in. And would have to do the checks for all packages every time this file is launched. Aside from the performance implications, a user launching this file would see errors/warnings coming from other packages they have no control over.

An alternative is to create a tool that can be used to search for a particular model/resource by it's URI. For example, if I wanted to check that the URI model://my_awesome_pkg/models/cool_robot is valid, I would run this tool and it would search all exported model paths and give me some diagnostic messages if the model couldn't be found.

@j-rivero any thoughts? I'd like to unblock ros/urdf_sim_tutorial#16 soon if possible.

I looked at doing this but the way this works, it's actually looking at all the packages in the system, not just the individual package the user might be interested in.

I was thinking on limiting the directories to inspect to the ones added via:

<export> <gazebo_ros gazebo_model_path="${prefix}/models"/> <gazebo_ros gazebo_media_path="${prefix}/media"/> <gazebo_ros plugin_path="${prefix}/plugins"/> </export>

Why do we need to check all the packages in the system?

And would have to do the checks for all packages every time this file is launched. Aside from the performance implications,

I agree that there is a performance implication that can be bad.

An alternative is to create a tool that can be used to search for a particular model/resource by it's URI. For example, if I wanted to check that the URI model://my_awesome_pkg/models/cool_robot is valid, I would run this tool and it would search all exported model paths and give me some diagnostic messages if the model couldn't be found.

That would be really useful indeed. Another approach would be to enable a launch argument or environment flag that enable this debug behavior.

Given the situation, I'm not blocking the PR, thought it was easier to add the checks.

The code for package_name in get_package_names(): iterates through all the packages available. Then we'd need to check if any package that exports gazebo_ros meets the sanity requirements you described.

ros_gz_sim/launch/gz_sim.launch.py.in

DLu · 2024-02-26T04:50:02Z

Are we waiting on the Tutorial to get this merged?

I have a URDF/Gazebo tutorial waiting to be merged and there is a section ("Side note: Configuring meshes") that covers this area. The tutorial is written for for Gazebo Classique, but as linked above, I'm trying to get the Gazebo New Coke version to work too.

Signed-off-by: Addisu Z. Taddese <[email protected]>

azeey · 2024-02-28T01:12:04Z

@ahcorde , @DLu I've added a section to the README that explains how to use this. Let me know your thoughts. This could be expanded into a full tutorial on gazebosim.org/docs.

DLu · 2024-03-01T20:51:08Z

ahcorde · 2024-03-21T09:32:24Z

@azeey do you have any plan to forward port this to iron and rolling?

rakeshv24 · 2024-06-20T16:28:36Z

@azeey is this feature included in the jazzy release yet?

azeey · 2024-06-21T17:03:43Z

Ah, this fell through the cracks. I've started the forward port process: #564

rakeshv24 · 2024-06-21T22:59:07Z

Thanks!

ahcorde assigned azeey Feb 5, 2024

ahcorde approved these changes Feb 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

j-rivero reviewed Feb 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

azeey mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2024

Handle model:// path in URI ros/sdformat_urdf#20

Closed

DLu mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2024

Migrate to modern Gazebo ros/urdf_sim_tutorial#16

Open

azeey added 2 commits February 27, 2024 18:38

Add a section to README on the <gazebo_ros> tag

5859b2a

Signed-off-by: Addisu Z. Taddese <[email protected]>

Simplified code per reviewer feedback

cb902d7

Signed-off-by: Addisu Z. Taddese <[email protected]>

j-rivero approved these changes Mar 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

azeey merged commit 13e5592 into gazebosim:humble Mar 11, 2024
9 checks passed

azeey deleted the gazebo_ros_export branch March 11, 2024 17:10

azeey mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2024

Create a way for users to diagnose issues with finding resources (e.g. included .sdf files or meshes). #509

Open

woensug-choi mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2024

[GSOC-46] Fuel model usage and migration to ROS 2 launch files IOES-Lab/dave#2

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Support `<gazebo_ros>` in `package.xml` exports #492

Support `<gazebo_ros>` in `package.xml` exports #492

azeey commented Feb 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ahcorde left a comment

azeey commented Feb 5, 2024

j-rivero left a comment

j-rivero Feb 6, 2024

azeey Feb 28, 2024

azeey Mar 1, 2024

j-rivero Mar 5, 2024

azeey Mar 11, 2024

DLu commented Feb 26, 2024

azeey commented Feb 28, 2024

DLu commented Mar 1, 2024

ahcorde commented Mar 21, 2024

rakeshv24 commented Jun 20, 2024

azeey commented Jun 21, 2024

rakeshv24 commented Jun 21, 2024

Support <gazebo_ros> in package.xml exports #492

Support <gazebo_ros> in package.xml exports #492

Conversation

azeey commented Feb 2, 2024 • edited Loading

🎉 New feature

Summary

Test it

Checklist

ahcorde left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

azeey commented Feb 5, 2024

j-rivero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

j-rivero Feb 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

azeey Feb 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

azeey Mar 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

j-rivero Mar 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

azeey Mar 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DLu commented Feb 26, 2024

azeey commented Feb 28, 2024

DLu commented Mar 1, 2024

ahcorde commented Mar 21, 2024

rakeshv24 commented Jun 20, 2024

azeey commented Jun 21, 2024

rakeshv24 commented Jun 21, 2024

Support `<gazebo_ros>` in `package.xml` exports #492

Support `<gazebo_ros>` in `package.xml` exports #492

azeey commented Feb 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading