-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RST-6618 fixes for action bridge #2
Conversation
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ class ActionFactory_1_2 : public ActionFactoryInterface | |||
std::shared_future<ROS2ClientGoalHandle> gh2_future; | |||
auto send_goal_ops = ROS2SendGoalOptions(); | |||
send_goal_ops.goal_response_callback = | |||
[this, &gh2_future](std::shared_future<ROS2GoalHandle> gh2) mutable { | |||
[this, &gh2_future](ROS2GoalHandle gh2) mutable { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
API change from Foxy to Rolling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume this also works for iron?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why make these changes on our fork of ros1_bridge instead of either
- Making a change upstream and back porting to iron?
- or switching over to rolling if it's fixed there
- or just cherry-picking commits from rolling onto our fork?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The action bridge stuff is not merged into upstream ros1_bridge
. The PR for it is probably abandoned. Notice that this merge is into an action_bridge
branch and not locus-devel
. I'll see what Paul wants to do with the action_bridge branch once he's back.
7265e74
to
83b744d
Compare
I suspect there will be more changes, but might as well get these reviewed for now. |
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ class ActionFactory_1_2 : public ActionFactoryInterface | |||
std::shared_future<ROS2ClientGoalHandle> gh2_future; | |||
auto send_goal_ops = ROS2SendGoalOptions(); | |||
send_goal_ops.goal_response_callback = | |||
[this, &gh2_future](std::shared_future<ROS2GoalHandle> gh2) mutable { | |||
[this, &gh2_future](ROS2GoalHandle gh2) mutable { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why make these changes on our fork of ros1_bridge instead of either
- Making a change upstream and back porting to iron?
- or switching over to rolling if it's fixed there
- or just cherry-picking commits from rolling onto our fork?
83b744d
to
f7b36e4
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think there are still some open questions here. Some of the questions I see are from 6 months ago.
I think most of that is about upstreaming these changes? There's also a big element missing from the action_bridge feature fork: support for running from |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
Do you have any demo's of exec running with nav2?
Required because output files are now copied in using `update_output_file` instead of being created by `expand_template`.
a7823f3
to
8a90a8e
Compare
Fixed action_bridge changes to work with newer ros2 releases and added support for skipping previously built generated factories to speed up recompiling.
Fixed action_bridge changes to work with newer ros2 releases and added support for skipping previously built generated factories to speed up recompiling.
No description provided.