Port wholebodydynamics to the usage of MASserver/client

[Nicogene]

Is your feature request related to a problem?

No response

The solution you would like to have available

We ought to port wholebodydynamics to the usage of multipleanalogsensorsclient in order to finalize the deprecation of analoSensor for publishing FT data (see robotology/robots-configuration#470)

icub-main/src/modules/wholeBodyDynamics/observerThread.cpp

Lines 411 to 433 in ec61234

	if (autoconnect)
	{
	//from iCub to wholeBodyDynamics
	Network::connect(string("/"+local_name+"/filtered/inertial:o").c_str(),string("/"+local_name+"/inertial:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+robot_name+"/inertial").c_str(), string("/"+local_name+"/unfiltered/inertial:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+robot_name+"/left_arm/analog:o").c_str(), string("/"+local_name+"/left_arm/FT:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+robot_name+"/right_arm/analog:o").c_str(), string("/"+local_name+"/right_arm/FT:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+robot_name+"/left_leg/analog:o").c_str(), string("/"+local_name+"/left_leg/FT:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+robot_name+"/right_leg/analog:o").c_str(), string("/"+local_name+"/right_leg/FT:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+robot_name+"/left_foot/analog:o").c_str(), string("/"+local_name+"/left_foot/FT:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+robot_name+"/right_foot/analog:o").c_str(), string("/"+local_name+"/right_foot/FT:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	//from wholeBodyDynamics to iCub (mandatory)
	Network::connect(string("/"+local_name+"/left_arm/Torques:o").c_str(), string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/left_arm:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+local_name+"/right_arm/Torques:o").c_str(),string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/right_arm:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+local_name+"/left_leg/Torques:o").c_str(), string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/left_leg:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+local_name+"/right_leg/Torques:o").c_str(),string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/right_leg:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	Network::connect(string("/"+local_name+"/torso/Torques:o").c_str(), string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/torso:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	//from wholeBodyDynamics to iCub (optional)
	if (Network::exists(string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/left_wrist:i").c_str()))
	Network::connect(string("/"+local_name+"/left_wrist/Torques:o").c_str(), string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/left_wrist:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	if (Network::exists(string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/right_wrist:i").c_str()))
	Network::connect(string("/"+local_name+"/right_wrist/Torques:o").c_str(),string("/"+robot_name+"/joint_vsens/right_wrist:i").c_str(),"tcp",false);
	}

Alternatives you have considered

No response

Additional context

No response

[Nicogene]

This activity will start as soon as we have completed robotology/robots-configuration#485

[Nicogene]

PR:

• wbd: port it for using MAS client also for FT  #876

Right now the changes are breaking for those who still use analog:o, but since we want to replace it w/ the idyntree wbd I would not spend too much effort to support any possible configuration.

cc @traversaro @pattacini

[pattacini]

There are CAN robots that we still need to maintain in terms of the red-ball demo and thus the current WBD.

The migration to the idyntree-based WBD is not straightforward as we'd need the URDF and thus won't happen any time soon.

[traversaro]

Probably we need to migrate CAN-based sensors from canBusAnalogSensor to canBusFTSensor (see #813), so that the MAS interfaces are exposed?

[pattacini]

Probably we need to migrate CAN-based sensors from canBusAnalogSensor to canBusFTSensor (see #813), so that the MAS interfaces are exposed?

Yep, that's a good option.
We could do that for those CAN robots that we decide to keep up-to-date.
For the rest, we can say that they're covered up to a certain distro.

[Nicogene]

As reported here the current implementation is working fine, and if robots-configuration is up-to-date no robot is kept back, since this

Probably we need to migrate CAN-based sensors from canBusAnalogSensor to canBusFTSensor (see #813), so that the MAS interfaces are exposed?

has been done here robotology/robots-configuration#517.

My opinion is that keeping the implementation of reading from a port analog:o and the MAS client is not worthy, since this module is in a kind of "deprecation" state.
It has several hardcoded parameters since it is not reading any urdf as the idyntree twin does, for this reason for new robots it has poor performances, independently of these changes.