Skip to content
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

[Meta ticket] Roadmap for migrating diagnostics to ROS 2 #1

Open
4 of 8 tasks
ralph-lange opened this issue Mar 5, 2019 · 7 comments
Open
4 of 8 tasks

[Meta ticket] Roadmap for migrating diagnostics to ROS 2 #1

ralph-lange opened this issue Mar 5, 2019 · 7 comments

Comments

@ralph-lange
Copy link
Collaborator

ralph-lange commented Mar 5, 2019

Meta Ticket tracking the progress of migrating diagnostics to ros2:

We propose the following next PRs:

We do not plan to port diagnostic_analysis.

Questions:

  • Is this order fine for you, @trainman419 ?
  • Any thoughts on the order of the other packages?
@Karsten1987 Karsten1987 changed the title Roadmap for migrating diagnostics to ROS 2 [Meta ticket] Roadmap for migrating diagnostics to ROS 2 Mar 5, 2019
@trainman419
Copy link

That sounds great. I don't really have an opinion on the porting order.

@norro
Copy link

norro commented Mar 7, 2019

@Karsten1987 I would offer to help with the migration. However, as I am probably much slower than you are, I should probably focus on an isolated package to avoid slowing you down. Both, diagnostic_common_diagnostics as well as diagnostic_aggregator, seem to be feasible. Do you have a preference, which package I should attempt migrating?

@ralph-lange
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ralph-lange commented Mar 7, 2019

Regarding the migration of bond: We should first analyze the liveliness mechanisms provided by DDS (cf. Section 2.2.3.11 of the DDS standard v1.4, which is available at https://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/15-04-10.pdf).

@Karsten1987
Copy link

Karsten1987 commented Mar 18, 2019

@ralph-lange where I actually agree with the liveliness I am somewhat unhappy with relying on DDS only features in high level packages. Generally, I still feel that ROS2 should stay DDS agnostic and therefore possibly support different middleware types.
That being said, the discussion about it is happening here: ros2/design#212

@norro Given Ralph's comment, I would support the idea that you guys have a look at the liveliness or DDS features which could be used and make a judgement call on the diagnostics_aggregator. I'll then start with the diagnostic_common_diagnostics package. I am of course always happy to help in case you've got questions.

@norro
Copy link

norro commented Apr 9, 2019

I recently started migration of the diagnostic_aggregator package. It is still raw and not able to compile, mainly due to: migration of parameter handling, migration of logging (originally had lots of logging outside nodes), and testing.
I didn't push so far as it is still in a raw shape.

@norro
Copy link

norro commented Apr 26, 2019

Migration of C++ API done, see ros/diagnostics@ros2-devel...boschresearch:ros2_migrate_diagnostic_aggregator.
@Karsten1987 Compiles without errors and warnings. Note: If you want to build it (e.g., CI) remember that it currently needs the bond_core from PR#43, i.e. https://github.com/kishornaik10/bond_core/tree/ros2-devel

@norro
Copy link

norro commented Apr 26, 2019

Migration of larger python parts is blocked as bondpy is not yet ported to ros2, see discussion in ros/bond_core#43

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants