Explicitly specify all qos depth #70
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 5 commits
January 31, 2024 14:03
Signed-off-by: Teo Koon Peng <koonpeng@openrobotics.org>
Signed-off-by: Teo Koon Peng <koonpeng@openrobotics.org>
Signed-off-by: Teo Koon Peng <koonpeng@openrobotics.org>
aaronchongth
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bug fix
Thanks to @luca-della-vedova for pointing out that using the system default qos might not be appropriate as that depends on the RMW implementation, particularly, for cyclone, it defaults to history depth 1, making it very likely for messages to be silently discarded.
This series of PRs explicitly set a history depth of 10 to all topics and services that does not already set the history depth, those that already set the history depth are untouched. In total 78 instances across rmf codebases are modified, I tested this briefly, so far I haven't encountered any problems yet.
@aaronchongth This might fix some of the "unexplained" issues.
Implemented feature
Implementation description