Extend Kuka .rsix and .xml with more GPIOs by habartakh · Pull Request #13 · b-robotized/b_ctrldbox_commissioning

habartakh · 2026-06-30T10:58:34Z

Based on the branch kuka-master-updates.

The goal if the MR is to extend the GPIOs of the b_ctrldbox_rsi.rsix and b_ctrldbox_rsi_eth.xml to match the number of GPIOs defined in the AIP Project.

In b_ctrldbox_rsi.rsix , the DigIn and DigOut suffixes (e.g: DigIn_132 & DigIn_139) refer to the mappings defined inside the AIP Wiki.

In b_ctrldbox_rsi_eth.xml, the GPIO names match the ones defined for the state/command interfaces for the AIP Bosch Gripper.

The example GPIOs GPIO.01 and GPIO.02 were left untouched.

destogl

Please check if the mapping is correct.

destogl · 2026-06-30T16:18:02Z

+      </RsiObject>
+      <RsiObject ObjTypeId="14" ObjType="Map2DigOut" ObjId="Map2DigOut_46">
+         <Inputs>
+            <Input InIdx="0" OutObjId="Ethernet_1" OutIdx="19" />


Here is the last index 19, but below 20. Is this correct.

There seems to be an offset of 1 between INDX in the eth.xml and OutIdx in the .rsix. That is the case also in the example GPIO.

This pattern is applied for Map2DigOut_1:

Map2DigOut_1: OutIdx:7 (.rsix) --> INDX=8 (eth.xml)

Following the same pattern, we end up with indexes up to 18 in .rsix and 19 in eth.xml (after removing the example gpio).

destogl · 2026-06-30T16:20:35Z

-      <ELEMENT TAG="GPIO.01" TYPE="BOOL"   INDX="8" HOLDON="1" />
+      <ELEMENT TAG="GPIO.01"  TYPE="BOOL"  INDX="8"  HOLDON="1" />
+      <!-- Ejectors (suction) -->
+      <ELEMENT TAG="GPIO.suction_1" TYPE="BOOL" INDX="9"  HOLDON="1" />


Above seems to me to be 8 starting index, but here is 9? Correct?

Thank you for identifying this error. This is because we kept the example GPIO. The commit 343659e removes it so the starting index is 8 again.

destogl · 2026-06-30T16:22:46Z

@@ -8,6 +8,14 @@
         <Inputs>
            <Input InIdx="0" OutObjId="DigOut_1" OutIdx="0" />


why do we have here DigOut? Is this an error.

I would even remove the examples.

Removed the example GPIOs in commit 343659e

destogl · 2026-06-30T16:27:12Z

+            <Input InIdx="6" OutObjId="DigIn_136" OutIdx="0" />
+            <Input InIdx="7" OutObjId="DigIn_137" OutIdx="0" />
+            <Input InIdx="8" OutObjId="DigIn_138" OutIdx="0" />
+            <Input InIdx="9" OutObjId="DigIn_139" OutIdx="0" />


here you end with 9 and below with 10.

Yes, there seems to be an offset of 1 between INDX in the eth.xml and InIdx in the .rsix. That is the case also in the example GPIO:

DigOut_1: InIdx=0 (.rsix)--> INDX=1 (eth.xml)

DigIn_1: InIdx=1 --> INDX=2

We followed the same pattern resulting in indexes offset by 1.

destogl · 2026-06-30T16:28:52Z

+      <ELEMENT TAG="GPIO.extend_check_2"  TYPE="BOOL" INDX="7"  />  
+      <ELEMENT TAG="GPIO.extend_check_4"  TYPE="BOOL" INDX="8"  />  
+      <ELEMENT TAG="GPIO.retract_check_2" TYPE="BOOL" INDX="9"  />  
+      <ELEMENT TAG="GPIO.retract_check_4" TYPE="BOOL" INDX="10" />  


here you end up with index 10, not sure if this maps correctly.

destogl · 2026-07-02T17:48:40Z

   </BlueprintCollections>
   <Constructs xmlns="RsiConstruct">
      <Construct Name="Ethernet_1" BlueprintName="Ethernet" BlueprintCollection="RSI" Location="400,370">
-         <Inputs>


We should define those too

Fixed in commit b7f0376

destogl · 2026-07-02T17:49:05Z

            <DoubleParameter Name="MaxE6" CanBeSetFromKrl="true" Value="2000" />
         </Parameters>
      </Construct>
-      <Construct Name="DigOut_1" BlueprintName="DigOut" BlueprintCollection="RSI" Location="0,370" />


Also this. It is UI but still to be consistent

Added in commit b7f0376

destogl · 2026-07-02T17:50:38Z

+      <ELEMENT TAG="AK.A5" TYPE="DOUBLE" INDX="6"  HOLDON="1" />
+      <ELEMENT TAG="AK.A6" TYPE="DOUBLE" INDX="7"  HOLDON="1" />
+      <!-- Ejectors (suction) -->
+      <ELEMENT TAG="GPIO.suction_1" TYPE="BOOL" INDX="8"  HOLDON="1" />


But above those start at index 7, so the other file has to be adjusted

Yes, but from what I have seen on the example file, there is an offset of 1 between the indexes in the .rsix and eth.xml as displayed with the example GPIO:

Map2DigOut_1: OutIdx:7 (.rsix) --> INDX:8 (eth.xml).
The same pattern is followed by the other elements:

e.g: AK.A6: OutIdx:6 (.rsix) --> INDX:7 (.eth.xml)

I just want to confirm before making the change: shall we set the OutIdx to 8 in the .rsix file when mapping it to GPIO.suction_1? And change all indexes accordingly?

Ah OK, you are right! Ok we try it like this on the robot.

habartakh added 2 commits June 26, 2026 16:09

Extend the kuka .rsix and .xml gpios

343659e

Update GPIOs names to use lowercase

c202915

habartakh requested a review from destogl June 30, 2026 10:58

destogl requested changes Jun 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Remove example GPIOs and update IO indexes

d1f076a

habartakh requested a review from destogl July 1, 2026 08:54

destogl reviewed Jul 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Add the constructs for the IOs or the .rsix

b7f0376

habartakh requested a review from destogl July 3, 2026 14:29

		@@ -8,6 +8,14 @@
		<Inputs>
		<Input InIdx="0" OutObjId="DigOut_1" OutIdx="0" />

Uh oh!

Conversation

habartakh commented Jun 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

destogl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

habartakh Jul 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

habartakh Jul 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

habartakh commented Jun 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

habartakh Jul 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

habartakh Jul 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading