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

Fix penalty calculation in constraints cost function in STOMP #2631

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

patrickKXMD
Copy link
Contributor

Description

@henningkayser
I mentioned this issue here: #2554 (comment)
I can't plan in STOMP with joint constrants.

I think the penalty result for constraints cost function should be 0.0 when ConstraintEvaluationResult.satisfied is true

Checklist

  • Required by CI: Code is auto formatted using clang-format
  • Extend the tutorials / documentation reference
  • Document API changes relevant to the user in the MIGRATION.md notes
  • Create tests, which fail without this PR reference
  • Include a screenshot if changing a GUI
  • While waiting for someone to review your request, please help review another open pull request to support the maintainers

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 22, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 50.63%. Comparing base (0e1e376) to head (ba370bf).
Report is 46 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2631      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   50.99%   50.63%   -0.36%     
==========================================
  Files         387      386       -1     
  Lines       32308    32133     -175     
==========================================
- Hits        16473    16267     -206     
- Misses      15835    15866      +31     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@henningkayser henningkayser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am a little bit conflicted about this change. I agree, that states that satisfy the constraints should not render states or trajectories invalid. At the same time, it would be great if we could still continue optimizing for constraints within the space. This change would probably result in many solutions that just barely satisfy the constraints since they stop optimizing at the constraint boundaries. Considering, that the current cost function categorizes non-zero costs as invalid, I'll approve this change. But at the same time I would be very interested in follow-ups that would support explicit cost thresholding to catch this case instead.
Can you add a NOTE referencing this issue? #2658

Copy link

This PR is stale because it has been open for 45 days with no activity. Please tag a maintainer for help on completing this PR, or close it if you think it has become obsolete.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Inactive issues and PRs are marked as stale and may be closed automatically. label Mar 11, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale Inactive issues and PRs are marked as stale and may be closed automatically. label Oct 17, 2024
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