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

Support unidirectional bridge topics #38

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 15, 2019
Merged

Support unidirectional bridge topics #38

merged 5 commits into from
Aug 15, 2019

Conversation

nkoenig
Copy link
Contributor

@nkoenig nkoenig commented Aug 15, 2019

Allow the use of @, [, or ] between the message types to indicate if a bridge should be bidirectional, to ROS, or to IGN.

@nkoenig
Copy link
Contributor Author

nkoenig commented Aug 15, 2019

@AlejoAsd
Copy link

In this comment, you're mentioning @, < and > are used to indicate direction. However, the code suggests it's actually [ and ] for unidirectional communication.

@nkoenig
Copy link
Contributor Author

nkoenig commented Aug 15, 2019

Fixed.

@azeey
Copy link
Contributor

azeey commented Aug 15, 2019

FYI, just noticed that zsh doesn't like the [ character on the command line. I had to wrap the whole argument to parameter_bridge in quotes. Maybe we can mention that when the examples in the README are updated.

@mjcarroll
Copy link
Collaborator

@azeey That's a function of zsh's globbing. If you have setopt extendedglob somewhere in your config, that's going to happen.

You can also prefix the command with noglob or alias rosrun=noglob rosrun to get around that.

@nkoenig
Copy link
Contributor Author

nkoenig commented Aug 15, 2019

I'm also open to using other characters. The <, > symbols can't be used either.

@mjcarroll
Copy link
Collaborator

I personally think that the inconvenience around [] with zsh is pretty minor.

Most of the time, I would imagine that this is going through a launch file of some sort, where it is a non-issue.

@nkoenig nkoenig merged commit 7c3f091 into master Aug 15, 2019
@chapulina chapulina deleted the unidirectional branch July 8, 2022 16:41
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants