Add ABB IRB 1200 moveit package

[ajshort]

No description provided.

[Levi-Armstrong]

@ajshort Thank you for the contribution. Can you add the components described here in the "Update Configuration Files" section?

[ajshort]

@Levi-Armstrong Done in a4f67cb

[Levi-Armstrong]

Great Thank you.

[gavanderhoorn]

@ajshort: thanks for this. Travis seems to be failing on some missing files:

FAILURE:
[/root/catkin_ws/src/abb_experimental/abb_irb1200_support/tests/roslaunch_test_irb1200_5_90.xml]:
	while processing /root/catkin_ws/src/abb_experimental/abb_irb1200_support/launch/robot_interface_download_irb1200_5_90.launch:
Invalid roslaunch XML syntax: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: u'/root/catkin_ws/src/abb_experimental/abb_irb1200_support/launch/robot_interface_download_irb1200_5_90.launch'
wrote test file to [/root/catkin_ws/build/abb_irb1200_support/test_results/abb_irb1200_support/roslaunch-check_tests_roslaunch_test_irb1200_5_90.xml.xml]
...writing test results to /root/catkin_ws/build/abb_irb1200_support/test_results/abb_irb1200_support/roslaunch-check_tests_roslaunch_test_irb1200_7_70.xml.xml
FAILURE:
[/root/catkin_ws/src/abb_experimental/abb_irb1200_support/tests/roslaunch_test_irb1200_7_70.xml]:
	while processing /root/catkin_ws/src/abb_experimental/abb_irb1200_support/launch/robot_interface_download_irb1200_7_70.launch:
Invalid roslaunch XML syntax: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: u'/root/catkin_ws/src/abb_experimental/abb_irb1200_support/launch/robot_interface_download_irb1200_7_70.launch'
wrote test file to [/root/catkin_ws/build/abb_irb1200_support/test_results/abb_irb1200_support/roslaunch-check_tests_roslaunch_test_irb1200_7_70.xml.xml]

For robot_interface_download_irb1200_5_90.launch I'm not sure what is going on, but the 7_70 launch file is indeed not there in the support package.

Is the PR missing files?

[gavanderhoorn]

Ah, you renamed the file in c3b9ce5 (removed the variant suffix). Was that on purpose?

It may seem redundant, but we like to be as explicit as possible with all of this, that's why all files that are variant-specific have a variant suffix (ie: _5_90 and _7_70).

[ajshort]

Yep, I removed the suffix as the same file can be used for both variants. Hopefully I have pushed a fix - will see how the tests go.

[gavanderhoorn]

@ajshort wrote:

Yep, I removed the suffix as the same file can be used for both variants. Hopefully I have pushed a fix - will see how the tests go.

Ok. As I wrote above, it may seem redundant, but we like to be as explicit about things as possible. Additionally, at the moment these files may all look the same, but that may change in the future. This way we already have the infrastructure in place, and everything (ie: support for different variants) is as independent as it can be.

[stwirth]

+1 for merging this. @gavanderhoorn did you want the both robot variants not to share the joint_names.yaml? I think it is fine as the variants only differ in size and not number of joints.

[gavanderhoorn]

@stwirth wrote:

+1 for merging this. @gavanderhoorn did you want the both robot variants not to share the joint_names.yaml? I think it is fine as the variants only differ in size and not number of joints.

None of the files should be shared by variants, with the exception of meshes (geometry).

As I wrote above in an earlier comment: the files may contain the same information right now, but that is not guaranteed to stay that way, and by giving each variant its own fileset, we keep them as decoupled as possible.

[stwirth]

@gavanderhoorn understood. I made a new PR to fix this: #81.

[gavanderhoorn]

Closing this one, but continuing (commits have been included in) #85.