[examples] Plumb SceneGraphConfig through hardware_sim

[rpoyner-tri]

This change is 

[rpoyner-tri]

+@jwnimmer-tri for (maybe both) review.

Reviewable status: LGTM missing from assignee jwnimmer-tri(platform), needs at least two assigned reviewers, missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

[jwnimmer-tri]

I am OK with "both" but possibly you'd like to ask a dynamics person to check that the example physical setting (point contact thing) is a sensible thing for our centerpiece example.

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, needs at least two assigned reviewers, missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

---

examples/hardware_sim/hardware_sim.py line 86 at r1 (raw file):

    # Plant configuration (time step and contact parameters).
    plant_config: MultibodyPlantConfig = MultibodyPlantConfig()
    scene_graph_config: SceneGraphConfig = SceneGraphConfig()

nit To match the C++ file:

Suggestion:

      # SceneGraph configuration.
      scene_graph_config: SceneGraphConfig = SceneGraphConfig()

[jwnimmer-tri]

Reviewable status: 2 unresolved discussions, needs at least two assigned reviewers, missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

a discussion (no related file):
BTW Please update examples/hardware_sim/example_scenarios.yaml to have a scene_graph setting. Users will probably not check the test file to read about stuff.

---

[rpoyner-tri]

I changed the example setting to just repeat the compile time default compliance_type: "undefined".

Reviewable status: needs at least two assigned reviewers, missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, jwnimmer-tri (Jeremy Nimmer) wrote…

BTW Please update examples/hardware_sim/example_scenarios.yaml to have a scene_graph setting. Users will probably not check the test file to read about stuff.

Done. I felt a little funny about adding scene_graph_config to a file that doesn't even have explicit plant_config.

---

[jwnimmer-tri]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: needs at least two assigned reviewers, missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, rpoyner-tri (Rick Poyner (rico)) wrote…

Done. I felt a little funny about adding scene_graph_config to a file that doesn't even have explicit plant_config.

I am probably too familiar with all of these details to offer an opinion about what a good example looks like. The "undefined" seems slightly awkward to my first impression.

We should probably recruit a robotics person to weigh in.

---

[rpoyner-tri]

+@EricCousineau-TRI for robotics-cred and advice.

The motive here is to provide an example with SceneGraphConfig as explicit yaml data. The question for a roboticist is what kind of (hopefully non-destructive) to put in to the yaml files. We are not intending to build out a fully-docmented example here, just give a flavor of the data flow, similar to what is done here with MultibodyPlant's plant_config.

Thoughts on what data from SceneGraphConfig to use for a very-modest example?

Reviewable status: LGTM missing from assignee EricCousineau-TRI(platform), missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

[jwnimmer-tri]

I think as frequent scenario authors it might be worth tagging @dmcconachie-tri @IanTheEngineer @rcory for feedback on what a good example would look like.

[jwnimmer-tri]

Oh, also @hongkai-dai is making scenarios now too.

[dmcconachie-tri]

My thought would be that the example would be the mode that D&S would like users to default to; i.e.; hyodroelastics rather than simply repeat the default value of the config.

Reviewable status: LGTM missing from assignee EricCousineau-TRI(platform), missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

[EricCousineau-TRI]

with +1 to Dale's point

Reviewed 2 of 4 files at r1, 3 of 3 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

---

examples/hardware_sim/example_scenarios.yaml line 8 at r2 (raw file):

  scene_graph_config:
    default_proximity_properties:
      compliance_type: "undefined"

+1 to Dale's point - I assume this would be compliance_type: "compliant"

I assume that we want default to compliant since scene_graph_config docs state that rigid-rigid hydroelastic is unsupported

[rpoyner-tri]

Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)

---

examples/hardware_sim/example_scenarios.yaml line 8 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, EricCousineau-TRI (Eric Cousineau) wrote…

+1 to Dale's point - I assume this would be compliance_type: "compliant"

I assume that we want default to compliant since scene_graph_config docs state that rigid-rigid hydroelastic is unsupported

Done.

[jwnimmer-tri]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r3, all commit messages.
Dismissed @EricCousineau-TRI from a discussion.
Reviewable status: missing label for release notes (waiting on @rpoyner-tri)