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

Initialize constraints function #88

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mfogelson
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge branch 'initialize_constraints_clean'

Integrate the new initialize_constraint! function that allows mechanisms to find feasible initial joint conditions. This function enhances the system's overall capability by allowing users to find constraint-satisfying mechanism configurations.

This merge combines the changes from the initialize_constraints_clean branch, bringing the new function into the main branch.

Authors: Mitchell Fogelson mfogelso@andrew.cmu.edu

@mfogelson mfogelson added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 15, 2023
@mfogelson mfogelson self-assigned this Jun 15, 2023
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 15, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #88 (869cc46) into main (7b6c368) will decrease coverage by 1.42%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

❗ Current head 869cc46 differs from pull request most recent head f4ab22c. Consider uploading reports for the commit f4ab22c to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #88      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.51%   86.10%   -1.42%     
==========================================
  Files          89       90       +1     
  Lines        5086     5167      +81     
==========================================
- Hits         4451     4449       -2     
- Misses        635      718      +83     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/Dojo.jl 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/solver/initialize_constraints.jl 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Copy link
Member

@janbruedigam janbruedigam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you add a simple test for this function? Maybe with a double pendulum or fourbar


function constraintstep!(mechanism::Mechanism{T}, freebodies::Vector{Body{T}}; regularization=1e-6) where T
# Fetching all the free bodies
# freebodies = [get_body(mechanism, id) for id in freeids]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this supposed to be a comment?

end
end

# println([con_jac; I(num_bodies)*regularization])
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Remove comment here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants