Proper QoS profiles for sensor messages

[bigdayangyu]

The current cartographer_ros node.cc uses rmw_qos_profile_default as QoS profile for all sensor messages. It might be more appropriate to use rmw_qos_profile_sensor_data profile.
@Karsten1987

cartographer_ros/cartographer_ros/cartographer_ros/node.cc

Lines 444 to 475 in d4c62f7

	subscribers_[trajectory_id].push_back(
	{SubscribeWithHandler<sensor_msgs::msg::Imu>(&Cartographer::HandleImuMessage,
	trajectory_id, topic,
	node_handle_, this, rmw_qos_profile_default),
	topic});
	}
	if (options.use_odometry) {
	std::string topic = topics.odometry_topic;
	subscribers_[trajectory_id].push_back(
	{SubscribeWithHandler<nav_msgs::msg::Odometry>(&Cartographer::HandleOdometryMessage,
	trajectory_id, topic,
	node_handle_, this, rmw_qos_profile_default),
	topic});
	}
	if (options.use_nav_sat) {
	std::string topic = topics.nav_sat_fix_topic;
	subscribers_[trajectory_id].push_back(
	{SubscribeWithHandler<sensor_msgs::msg::NavSatFix>(&Cartographer::HandleNavSatFixMessage,
	trajectory_id, topic,
	node_handle_, this, rmw_qos_profile_default),
	topic});
	}
	if (options.use_landmarks) {
	std::string topic = topics.landmark_topic;
	subscribers_[trajectory_id].push_back(
	{SubscribeWithHandler<cartographer_ros_msgs::msg::LandmarkList>(&Cartographer::HandleLandmarkMessage,
	trajectory_id, topic,
	node_handle_, this, rmw_qos_profile_default),
	topic});

[clalancette]

Yes, that may be the case. When I did the initial port, I was having some trouble with that, but that was probably an error on my part. I'd welcome a pull request that did that, but I'd want to see some results from testing before we merged.

[clalancette]

This was actually done in #29, so I'm going to close this out. Feel free to reopen if this doesn't work for you. Thanks.