Possible Undefined Behavior / NaNs about direct_lidar_inertial_odometry HOT 6 CLOSED

Sounds good. I'll take care of it in the next couple of days

from direct_lidar_inertial_odometry.

@juliangaal -- Thanks again for the catch. I added a quick fix for when, for some reason, dt == 0. Shouldn't happen unless there is a data hiccup.

from direct_lidar_inertial_odometry.

It's not a guarantee that, just because dt == 0 then the previous measurement and the current measurement are the same. It could be possible that the measurements are different and distinct, but for whatever reason the timestamps are equal. Yes returning won't affect the average rate calculation, but that's purely for visualization. If we return when dt == 0, that would throw away that measurement.

I suppose alternatively, if dt==0, that could be an indicator that a measurement was duplicated during data passing, but I would rather risk duplicating a measurement than losing information. In any case, in practice this should rarely happen, so either way would handle it fine. Just my thinking.

from direct_lidar_inertial_odometry.

Ah, good catch! Yes a PR would be great. Thanks so much @juliangaal :)

from direct_lidar_inertial_odometry.

I'm surprised you're not simply returning. Could you explain your thinking? To my understanding, it shouldn't affect the calculation of the average rate because it just does an std::accumulate on the vector and doesn't care about the number of elements.

from direct_lidar_inertial_odometry.

great, thanks.

from direct_lidar_inertial_odometry.