Fix handling rpy with pitch equal to +/-M_PI/2 #19
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was referenced Oct 4, 2015
|
i did not check this, but the updated formula seems incorrect to me. can someone else check? @scpeters |
|
For a brief explanation of the correction, for the case of pitch equal to M_PI/2 , please check http://mathb.in/44096 . |
|
It's not intuitive, but I checked the math and it looks right. Also, they wrote a nice test in urdfdom, which fails without this change. +1 |
jacquelinekay
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2015
Fix handling rpy with pitch equal to +/-M_PI/2
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix issue #18 .
Some trailing whitespace cleanup was accidentally added to the PR, for getting a clean diff without the
whitespaces change check https://github.com/ros/urdfdom_headers/pull/19/files?w= .
With this patch, all the test added in ros/urdfdom#67 correctly pass.
cc @vrabaud I did some check on a paper and it seemed to me that the old version was wrong, but perhaps I missed something. The new version seems ok to you?
The link to https://orbitalstation.wordpress.com/tag/quaternion/ is a bit confusing, because the formula reported there are different from the one implemented, and it is not clear if this is caused by some different convention used or for some other reason.
I think is a good idea to remove it.