Actions proposal #193

sloretz · 2018-10-12T23:57:58Z

This PR is contains proposed changes and additions to the actions design doc started by @gbiggs in PR #183. It is targeted at gh-pages instead of gbiggs:gh-pages so the PR appears on this repo and the waffle board.

…ons_proposal

…s_proposal

Includes a state machine diagram for reference.

…s_proposal

Added references to specific packages.

…s_proposal

Rename ACTIVE -> EXECUTING and intermediate states to 'active' states. Also added a transition from EXECUTING to CANCELED.

jacobperron · 2018-10-16T23:38:11Z

Thanks for the review, everyone!

Updates to the design doc:

Added ACCEPTED state to the goal state machine.
- This allows users to queue/list goals and know which ones have begun executing.
Removed transition EXECUTING -> CANCELED. This lets the core handle transitions after an accepted cancel request and the implementer confirm with 'set_canceled'.
Minor typo, grammar, consistency corrections.
Updated the dishwasher example to alleviate any confusion with IDs.
Client is now the sole entity responsible for generating goal IDs as UUIDs.
Added section in "Alternatives" regarding using multiple topics for feedback/status (instead of the proposed single topic per action server).

TODO:

Add section summarizing differences between ROS 1 and ROS 2
- Any differences in terminology
- API differences side-by-side
- Example from MoveIt!
More sequence diagram examples

articles/actions.md

gbiggs · 2018-10-30T06:18:11Z

Also, we could have rosbag be aware of actions as a communication primitive and record the right things depending on your preferences (feedback and status only, requests and replies, etc...).

I think this is a requirement of making actions a first-class citizen in ROS2. All the tools, not just ros2 action, should be action-aware.

sloretz · 2018-10-31T17:54:00Z

Would this need an additional topic, or would the client side set up background thread that calls get_result() to wait for completion, then calls the callback as its final action?

@gbiggs If I understand correctly I don't think a topic or a background thread are needed. At the rcl layer the client would send the "get result" service request as soon as it learns the goal is accepted. When the "get result" service response is received the service becomes ready in the waitset. The executor in rclcpp or rclpy would call a callback in spin() to handle the result.

articles/actions.md

To better secure and segment access control of the different ROS subsystems, specifically to avoid the mapping of ROS2 actions to DDS topics from colliding with those of ROS2 topics and services, actions are to be allocated their own prefix to facilitate simpler policy profile permissions. Additionally, this and helps to prevent crossover of information flow in the case of more general permission prefix expressions. Contex: #193 (comment)

* Update authors * Update description of Cancel Service response * Minor wording change related to feedback and status topics

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

Add arrow depicting user execution method being notified of cancel event Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

clalancette

This looks generally good, and like what we implemented. There are a few typos that I pointed out, and there are some unresolved conversations. In order to not lose what is in those conversations while merging, I would suggest to either:

Comment on the conversations and declare them resolved, or
Open new issues to track the parts that we haven't addressed in the first implementation of actions

articles/actions.md

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

clalancette

I'm going to approve, but there is one long outstanding discussion that is not resolved: #193 (comment) . @jacobperron I'd appreciate a comment to close out that thread, a new issue if there is further to discuss, or a clarification to the document before merge. Thanks.

jacobperron · 2019-03-14T19:33:06Z

I'm going to approve, but there is one long outstanding discussion that is not resolved: #193 (comment) . @jacobperron I'd appreciate a comment to close out that thread, a new issue if there is further to discuss, or a clarification to the document before merge. Thanks.

Thanks, @clalancette! I made brief comment pointing to the continuation of the discussion in #203. Although it has been closed, I think we can postpone opening up another ticket until the issue is raised again or we decide it should be addressed.

gbiggs and others added 30 commits August 1, 2018 11:31

Add original proposal

104df38

Reformat and revise some of the information

cc48341

Fix missing close preformat

b3edf0a

Merge branch 'gh-pages' of https://github.com/gbiggs/design into acti…

ded103a

…ons_proposal

ROS 2 action server always generates goal id

29e0280

Rough description of services and topics

cfe4e66

ROS 1 cancels goals with stamps less than or equal to given time

c00f875

Add API section for action server

68320a4

Actions implemented in rcl

85dba7d

Merge branch 'actions_proposal' of github.com:ros2/design into action…

d3dc0be

…s_proposal

More italics

da638a9

QoS warning for goal submission service

45a7d0b

Add API section for action client

b263fd3

call -> calls

508247f

Server discards result after giving it to the client

98d2ba5

Actions namespaced separately from msg and srv definitions

7782276

Shrink possible statuses

23e942b

Replace high-level API section with details about goal states

4efd85e

Includes a state machine diagram for reference.

Begin section about bridging ROS 1 and ROS 2

0d83eb8

Add Action Server C++ examples

8b97ce8

Move SimpleActionServer example to separate section

2c7e9e3

Add include and type alias to action server example

2fb606c

Add Action Client C++ examples

95f6ad3

Bridge R1 client and R2 server expanded

8d9ccbf

Merge branch 'actions_proposal' of github.com:ros2/design into action…

d70f38f

…s_proposal

Move API examples to examples repo

1a5d958

Added references to specific packages.

Rough start to bridging ROS 1 server and ROS 2 client

bde9d09

Merge branch 'actions_proposal' of github.com:ros2/design into action…

224f081

…s_proposal

Update goal state machine

d634a61

Rename ACTIVE -> EXECUTING and intermediate states to 'active' states. Also added a transition from EXECUTING to CANCELED.

Move bridge to bottom

4c856b2

This was referenced Oct 17, 2018

Service and Message definitions for actions ros2/rcl_interfaces#40

Closed

Define how actions will be transmitted across the ROS 1 bridge #195

Open

Fix logic in cancel policy

a6144c7

mkhansenbot reviewed Oct 22, 2018

View reviewed changes

articles/actions.md Show resolved Hide resolved

gbiggs reviewed Oct 27, 2018

View reviewed changes

Minor clarifications

ad1b326

Add topic and service name generation

a439740

gbiggs reviewed Nov 1, 2018

View reviewed changes

articles/actions.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sloretz mentioned this pull request Nov 8, 2018

Design actions API and implementation #183

Closed

ruffsl mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2018

Expand ROS Specific Namespace Prefix for Actions #203

Closed

jacobperron mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2019

Action implementation ros2/rclpy#257

Closed

2 tasks

sloretz mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2019

Actions ros2/ros2#583

Closed

24 tasks

Address feedback from review

1ff406d

* Update authors * Update description of Cancel Service response * Minor wording change related to feedback and status topics

jacobperron mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2019

Add response code to action_msgs/CancelGoal service ros2/rcl_interfaces#63

Closed

jacobperron added 4 commits February 13, 2019 18:34

Add sub-section to alternavtives on action server goal ID generation

b7ac32a

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

Update interaction example diagram

0baa626

Add arrow depicting user execution method being notified of cancel event Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

Fix author line

d72d100

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

Add third action interfaction example

1c98b9b

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

jacobperron mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2019

Add CLI tool for Actions ros2/ros2cli#202

Closed

clalancette reviewed Mar 14, 2019

View reviewed changes

Fix typos, broken link, and rename goal events

f4b59fa

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <[email protected]>

clalancette approved these changes Mar 14, 2019

View reviewed changes

jacobperron merged commit bbfa861 into gh-pages Mar 14, 2019

jacobperron removed the in review Waiting for review (Kanban column) label Mar 14, 2019

jacobperron deleted the actions_proposal branch March 14, 2019 19:37

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Actions proposal #193

Actions proposal #193

sloretz commented Oct 12, 2018

jacobperron commented Oct 16, 2018

gbiggs commented Oct 30, 2018

sloretz commented Oct 31, 2018

clalancette left a comment

clalancette left a comment

jacobperron commented Mar 14, 2019

Actions proposal #193

Actions proposal #193

Conversation

sloretz commented Oct 12, 2018

jacobperron commented Oct 16, 2018

gbiggs commented Oct 30, 2018

sloretz commented Oct 31, 2018

clalancette left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

clalancette left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jacobperron commented Mar 14, 2019