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

ros descriptions are ignored in deployment process #199

Closed
smihael opened this issue Dec 29, 2020 · 1 comment
Closed

ros descriptions are ignored in deployment process #199

smihael opened this issue Dec 29, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@smihael
Copy link

smihael commented Dec 29, 2020

I'm trying to connect gzweb client to an existing gzserver with a properly spawned robot (I use https://github.com/justagist/panda_simulator).

Even though gzclient shows robot, gzweb does not. When opening JavaScript console in Firefox multiple messages about missing files are reported:
ColladaLoader: Couldn't load "http://localhost:8080/assets//franka_panda_description/meshes/visual/link7.dae" (404) gz3d.gui.js:44234:16

These files are indeed not present in the http/client/assets/ folder-

In #45 it is mentioned that GAZEBO_MODEL_PATH has to be set. In my case this means running:

export GAZEBO_MODEL_PATH=`rospack find franka_panda_description`:$GAZEBO_MODEL_PATH

Having done that, I ran npm run deploy --- -m local again and the script logs `franka_ros_interface ignored. Looking into get_local_models.py shows that packages without model.config file are ignored.

However this is the case for many ROS packages for spawning models in gazebo (e.g. https://github.com/openrobotics/talos_description).

@chapulina
Copy link
Contributor

In #45 it is mentioned that GAZEBO_MODEL_PATH has to be set.
packages without model.config file are ignored.

On #45 they also mention the need to add a model.config file, it looks like that's how people have been working around this issue.

Maybe the get_local_models script can be changed to support models without model.config while retaining the current functionality. But I'll close this issue because there are already a couple issues about URDF support: #45, #167. Please follow up in one of them.

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