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

Update README code snippets; reflects syntax changes. #410

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 28, 2019

Conversation

Mx7f
Copy link
Contributor

@Mx7f Mx7f commented Jun 27, 2019

The example code was based on syntax used in the pre-Eigen days.


This change is Reviewable

The example code was based on syntax used in the pre-Eigen days.
Copy link
Contributor

@SeanCurtis-TRI SeanCurtis-TRI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems an accurate depiction of the state of the art, but it highlights some unfortunate architecture.

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Mx7f)


README.md, line 59 at r1 (raw file):

// BVHModel is a template class for mesh geometry, for default OBBRSS template is used
typedef BVHModel<OBBRSSf> Model;
std::shared_ptr<Model> geom = std::make_shared<Model>();

BTW Why this particular change? It seems the old example was still "correct" (if antiquated).


README.md, line 154 at r1 (raw file):

// a) a callback to collision or distance; 
// b) an intermediate data to store the information generated during the broadphase computation
// For a), FCL's test framework provides default callbacks for both collision and distance.

This is very unfortunate. Test should be a code sink not a code source. This points to a defect. If we want people using this default, it shouldn't be defined in test.

The default callbacks should probably be moved into some common space that tests and programmers can use.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Mx7f Mx7f left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree; but is there anything I should change in this pull request? It seems like having accurate documentation is an improvement over incorrect documentation of the same architecture; and I am an FCL beginner, so I do not wish to make architectural changes at this time.

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @SeanCurtis-TRI)


README.md, line 59 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, SeanCurtis-TRI (Sean Curtis) wrote…

BTW Why this particular change? It seems the old example was still "correct" (if antiquated).

I'm new to fcl, but the only use I know of for the BVHModel class is as input to a CollisionObject, which requires it to be a shared_ptr (see line 86). The variable name change was just to use the same name here and on line 83.


README.md, line 154 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, SeanCurtis-TRI (Sean Curtis) wrote…

This is very unfortunate. Test should be a code sink not a code source. This points to a defect. If we want people using this default, it shouldn't be defined in test.

The default callbacks should probably be moved into some common space that tests and programmers can use.

I agree; but was concerned foremost with documenting whats currently going on (I'm trying to spin up fcl for a project).

Copy link
Contributor

@SeanCurtis-TRI SeanCurtis-TRI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:LGTM:

I've gone ahead and created an issue. However, this PR represents a net improvement and it's good to go.

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved


README.md, line 59 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Mx7f (Michael Mara) wrote…

I'm new to fcl, but the only use I know of for the BVHModel class is as input to a CollisionObject, which requires it to be a shared_ptr (see line 86). The variable name change was just to use the same name here and on line 83.

I'd forgotten that. Thanks.


README.md, line 154 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Mx7f (Michael Mara) wrote…

I agree; but was concerned foremost with documenting whats currently going on (I'm trying to spin up fcl for a project).

No worries.

@SeanCurtis-TRI SeanCurtis-TRI merged commit 2af546b into flexible-collision-library:master Jun 28, 2019
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