Two Arms and Rail With DX100

[Jmeyer1292]

These changes reflect the driver side changes that had to be made to support my 6-DOF motoman w/ an external rail.

This is not ready for merging

Please note that:

• If you have a DX100 and a rail, it CANNOT be configured as a base axis if you want to control it with ROS. Instead, you must configure the rail as an external axis.
• This PR includes changes from the Delft team (including all of them to the trajectory action server). On top of kinetic branch (so we still have enable/disable robot services).

I'm creating this so I have some documentation of the effort I went through.

I anticipate further cleanups will be desired, as well as testing on single arm, multi arms configs.

[gavanderhoorn]

Related issues: #91, #103 and #111.

[gavanderhoorn]

Related PR: #89 (comments).

[shaun-edwards]

@Jmeyer1292 are you still working on this one?

[Jmeyer1292]

Yes - I should have time next week.

The additional changes I want to make are fairly minimal. Mostly adding an example to the DX100 Inform code and addressing a couple of small things I changed regarding publishers in the code.

I don't know how we go about validating hardware... I want to test on a single arm configuration. Our SIA20D is unfortunately tied up for the rest of time, but I should be able to run it on the robot on Euler.

[gavanderhoorn]

@Jmeyer1292 wrote:

The additional changes I want to make are fairly minimal. Mostly adding an example to the DX100 Inform code and addressing a couple of small things I changed regarding publishers in the code.

be sure to check #183 and the example JBIs that @ted-miller included there.

[Jmeyer1292]

@gavanderhoorn Good call, those new jobs look very familiar. Major props to @ted-miller for his support - thanks!

[shaun-edwards]

Sorry guys...digging back through these. Is this PR good to merge?

[gavanderhoorn]

I don't know about @Jmeyer1292's commits, but the changes he copied from the branches we used for the APC could perhaps use some work.

I keep postponing reimplementing them though.

[Jmeyer1292]

I shouldn't have made this PR because I'm not prepared to support it at this time. Closing.

[gavanderhoorn]

@Jmeyer1292: we could keep it open as a reminder of the things that need to be fixed.

It's also a 'nice' entrypoint for users that want to use motoman_driver with anything but 1 or 4 groups.

[gavanderhoorn]

Re-opening just to keep this on the radar. These fixes are needed.