CI uses libccd 1.5, while the newest version is libccd 2.1

[hongkai-dai]

Currently the CI uses libccd 1.5

The newest libccd is version 2.1

In my PR #388 , it fails all the tests in CI. The test would also fail on my local machine, if I build libccd 1.5. But when I build libccd 2.1 locally, all tests in that PR pass.

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

@jamiesnape Is there a good way to condition the test on a minimum version of libccd?

[sherm1]

Or should we modernize FCL CI to use libccd 2.1?

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

Certainly, unifying it would be a good thing. The homebrew for mac is using a different version than the apt-get on ubuntu Trusty (which is what is running the linux ci). Forcing all of them to use the same version would remove some of the noise there.

[scpeters]

Ubuntu Trusty is end-of-life this month (April 2019), so it might be a good time to make changes to the CI anyway

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

And with impeccable timing, Travis CI made xenial available in November. Still, Xenial doesn't get us libccd 2.1. So, calling it out explicitly will probably give us the most stable results.

[wxmerkt]

I think this discussion links nicely to the one I opened upstream with ROS: ros/rosdistro#20284. Are there any backports of libccd v2.1 currently being built and maintained or are you planning on doing so?

[jamiesnape]

I have a huge overhaul of the CI in the pipeline, including Bionic support. It is just a case of prioritizing it.

[jamiesnape]

(and if you want libccd 2.1 apt packages for CI or otherwise, building them is no trouble and we have the infrastructure to host them.)

[wxmerkt]

(and if you want libccd 2.1 apt packages for CI or otherwise, building them is no trouble and we have the infrastructure to host them.)

This would be wonderful, especially if they could also be imported into the ROS apt.

[jamiesnape]

especially if they could also be imported into the ROS apt.

That is probably for the libccd author or ROS to handle, to be honest.

@jamiesnape Is there a good way to condition the test on a minimum version of libccd?

At least for recent libccd, I think the CCD_VERSION variable is defined, so given the old version of CMake in use, try

if(CCD_VERSION VERSION_EQUAL 2.1 OR CCD_VERSION VERSION_GREATER 2.1)
  add_test(...)
endif()

[jamiesnape]

@SeanCurtis-TRI @sherm1 Where this fit in the list of priorities? Feels like it is as equally blocked by a release as the other infrastructure improvements. Ideally, we would not be building libccd packages for Trusty, for instance.

[sherm1]

@SeanCurtis-TRI @hongkai-dai what's the priority to update FCL CI to use libccd 2.1?

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

We've addressed it to the degree that things aren't failing CI. Ideally, it would be good. But until we prioritize capping a release and pulling the trigger on the CI overhaul, I don't see there's really an practical way to advance this. I concur with @jamiesnape's assessment. So, I'd rephrase the question:

What's the priority of doing the CI overhaul?

[sherm1]

If it isn't blocking us at the moment I think it can wait until we've settled other FCL issues.