Waypoints don't support mission type

[fnoop]

Issue details

Waypoints don't support mission types (fence and rally), it is hardcoded for MAV_MISSION_TYPE = MISSION:
#957
415b789

It looks like the waypoint message needs to be extended for the new field?
http://docs.ros.org/api/mavros_msgs/html/msg/Waypoint.html

And then mavros needs to be updated to allow this field to be queried/set as per the other fields.

MAVROS version and platform

Mavros: 0.28
ROS: Melodic
Ubuntu: 18.04

Autopilot type and version

[ x ] ArduPilot
[ x ] PX4 (presumably)

[fnoop]

https://mavlink.io/en/services/mission.html#mission_types
https://mavlink.io/en/messages/common.html#MISSION_ITEM
https://mavlink.io/en/messages/common.html#MAV_MISSION_TYPE

[vooon]

No, i think it is useless in Waypoint itself.
More likely that it may be used in Push/Pull services, to manipulate with this lists.

Or i misunderstood spec, and this points is part of whole mission (single list)?

[SamuelDudley]

@vooon My understanding is in line with yours in that while the same message is used for waypoint, rally and fence communication ( e.g. https://mavlink.io/en/messages/common.html#MISSION_ITEM ) they represent discreet functionality.
So perhaps two additional push/pull services should be created (similar to the waypoint system) but with hard coded MAV_MISSION_TYPE = 1 for the fence point service and MAV_MISSION_TYPE = 2 for the rally point service (similar to how the value was hardcoded here:415b789) ?

[vooon]

@SamuelDudley perhaps. Maybe it is better to make basic waypoint io base class, and then do 3 plugins for each MISSION_TYPE.
Usual mission have some additional features, like tracking item change etc. But basic exchange should be same.

[Charlie-Burge]

Hi @vooon I have had a go at implementing this here: https://github.com/Charlie-Burge/mavros/tree/feature/rally-points.

I was initially adding rallypoints but it became clear quickly that adding functionality to send geofences wasn't hard to add beyond this. Does this implementation agree with your comment above?

[vooon]

@Charlie-Burge yes, that's close to what i want to see.

A few things to change:

1. i think mission_protocol_base.{h,cpp} would be more descriptive
2. likely it should be part of plug-in library rather than node lib
3. base class should implement only protocol part, not ROS interface, because i suppose it might be good to have more specific interface.
4. also note that logging all of that calls as a wp may be error prone.

[Charlie-Burge]

@vooon I believe I have managed to address your comments above in my latest commit - would it be best for me to submit a pull request to review in further detail?

[vooon]

@Charlie-Burge yes, please do it.