Skip to content

Conversation

@jtigue-bdai
Copy link
Collaborator

@jtigue-bdai jtigue-bdai commented Feb 15, 2025

Description

This PR is to add tests for velocity and effort limit settings for implicit and idealpd actuators.
NOTE this is a PR into a fix branch not main.

Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Screenshots

Please attach before and after screenshots of the change if applicable.

Checklist

  • I have run the pre-commit checks with ./isaaclab.sh --format
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have updated the changelog and the corresponding version in the extension's config/extension.toml file
  • I have added my name to the CONTRIBUTORS.md or my name already exists there

@jtigue-bdai jtigue-bdai marked this pull request as ready for review February 18, 2025 18:13
Comment on lines 60 to 69
elif cfg.effort_limit_sim is not None and cfg.effort_limit is None:
# TODO: Eventually we want to get rid of 'effort_limit' for implicit actuators.
# We should do this once all parameters have an "_sim" suffix.
cfg.effort_limit = cfg.effort_limit_sim
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jtigue-bdai jtigue-bdai Feb 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ultimately we don't want to set effort_limit for implicit. We want to only use effort_limit_sim to propagate to physx.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah but till then I think it's okay to have them both the same values and expect to have the same output when you read them? They should be seen as equivalent IMO

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah I get the reasoning. One issue I ran into was inning the test_valid_config. It operates on the registered instances of the cfgs so when it runs them for the second device it has overwritten them so then it raises the value error.

I guess an easy work around is to make a copy of the cfgs before initializing the asset.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah. We can do a copy inside the class. I think we might be doing it inside the base constructor already but for implicit since we modify before, it isn't getting called

@jtigue-bdai jtigue-bdai self-assigned this Feb 18, 2025
@jtigue-bdai jtigue-bdai changed the title Add tests for velocity for implicit Add tests for velocity_limit and velocity_limit_sim Feb 18, 2025
@jtigue-bdai jtigue-bdai force-pushed the fix/actuator-model-again-tests branch from e3ed9c3 to c7b4cfb Compare February 20, 2025 15:30
@Mayankm96 Mayankm96 merged commit 117a24a into fix/actuator-model-again Feb 20, 2025
4 of 5 checks passed
@Mayankm96 Mayankm96 deleted the fix/actuator-model-again-tests branch February 20, 2025 17:15
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.

3 participants