[rotemK]

Hi Albert, thanks for your reply. I didn't quite understand it though. I'll try to make myself more clear.
I've attached a short code snippet of what I'm doing - going through all inverse kinematics solutions of the original pos, to verify if I have a linear path from origin to the pos destination.
I'm using MoveL_Test since in your documentation, all it does is validate if there is a linear path between current joint configuration and end pos of the gripper.

What happens is that after using MoveL_Test - the arm itself moves (hence the function does more than just validate if the motion is possible).

If this is indeed an expected behavior, I would really appreciate if you could tell me how I can verify in advance, using your API, if I can move the arm linearly from one gripper position to the other, while going through all inverse kinematics potential solutions. (since sometimes If I use your MoveL, and the joint config hits a singularity, I could have used another joint config for the same pos, without hitting this singularity)

Thanks in advance!

inverse_k_sols =self._solveIK(self.arm) #returns all Inverse Kinematics solutions
foriinrange(0,len(inverse_k_sols)):

new_robot_joints = inverse_k_sols[:, i]
new_linear_move_res =self.arm.MoveL_Test(new_robot_joints, target.Pose())#FIXME: after this command, if the result is 0, the arm position is moved!
if(new_linear_move_res != -1)and(new_linear_move_res != -2):

self.arm.setJoints(new_robot_joints)
self.arm.MoveL(target)

---

另一个问题是,return value of MoveL_Test is sometimes 0 and sometimes 1 (in addition to -1 and -2).
Could you please state the difference if there is one?
Thanks a lot for the replies,
Yotam

Hi Albert and Yotamish,
I have been experiencing the same issues (the arm itself moves) when trying to use MoveJ_Test and MoveL_test for validation. Have you found a solution or a workaround?

Thanks a lot,
Rotem