Inconsistency between implementation and param description on intensity filter #164
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… intensity filter to allow no filtering.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The "lower_threshold"-param of the intensity filter describes that "Intensity values lower than this value will be filtered", while the implementation filters for values "lower equal", see https://github.com/ros-perception/laser_filters/blob/noetic-devel/src/intensity_filter.cpp#L78
Our proposal would be to keep the implementation as is and to update the description. Further, we propose to allow a negative value as a lower bound on the "lower_threshold" to allow no filtering on the lower bound. With the current implementation we saw in simulation that laser measurements with zero intensity were filtered out as well, which is undesired.
As an alternative, we can keep the dynamic configuration as is, but make the implementation consistent by replacing the "<=" statements in the link above by "<".