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

Change Markers into Nodes #692

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Apr 25, 2016
Merged

Change Markers into Nodes #692

merged 7 commits into from
Apr 25, 2016

Conversation

mxgrey
Copy link
Member

@mxgrey mxgrey commented Apr 23, 2016

Up until now, Markers have been managed separately from Nodes, because Markers predate the Node concept in DART. This PR changes Markers into a Node type so that it shares all the same machinery as Nodes instead of having its own machinery.

Note that this PR builds off of #691


This change is Reviewable

@jslee02
Copy link
Member

jslee02 commented Apr 24, 2016

Reviewed 20 of 43 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, 4 of 4 files at r4.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.


dart/dynamics/BodyNode.h, line 614 [r3] (raw file):
This function seems useful. How about having another createMarker that takes the marker properties like for ShapeNode and EndEffector for consistency?


Comments from Reviewable

Conflicts:
	dart/dynamics/BodyNode.cpp
	dart/dynamics/BodyNode.h
	dart/dynamics/Skeleton.cpp
	dart/dynamics/Skeleton.h
@mxgrey
Copy link
Member Author

mxgrey commented Apr 25, 2016

Review status: 2 of 16 files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.


dart/dynamics/BodyNode.h, line 614 [r3] (raw file):
I'll also modify the createEndEffector(const Properties&) implementation to no longer be templated. It used to be a templated function in order to work around the fact that EndEffector.h couldn't be visible to BodyNode.h due to a circular dependency. That circular dependency is gone now, so we no longer need the template there.


Comments from Reviewable

@jslee02
Copy link
Member

jslee02 commented Apr 25, 2016

:lgtm:


Reviewed 14 of 19 files at r5, 4 of 4 files at r6.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved.


Comments from Reviewable

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