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

handling ros service call fail #55

Closed
OTL opened this issue Sep 28, 2013 · 8 comments
Closed

handling ros service call fail #55

OTL opened this issue Sep 28, 2013 · 8 comments

Comments

@OTL
Copy link
Contributor

OTL commented Sep 28, 2013

rosbridge v2.0 protocol seems it does not support 'Failure of ros service'.
Failure means the service server returns false code.

I think it is better to handle the service result.
Adding

 "result": <bool> 

field to Service Response JSON will solve this problem.
(And if rosbridge server failed to call service, return JSON with this result:false for the response)
How do you think of this topic?

@baalexander
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @OTL, would the status messages specified in the protocol meet your needs?

@OTL
Copy link
Contributor Author

OTL commented Sep 29, 2013

May be no.

You know that ROS service callback must return boolean value.

rosbridge does nothing if the value is false, and does not send any responce to the client.

status message seems to be different from this.

From iPhone

On 日, 9月 29, 2013 at 10:07 午前, Brandon Alexander <notifications@github.com="mailto:notifications@github.com">> wrote:

Hi @OTL, would the status messages specified in the protocol meet your needs?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@rctoris
Copy link
Contributor

rctoris commented Sep 29, 2013

Yeah, I see what @OTL is getting at, it appears to be missing from the protocol entirely.

@odestcj
Copy link
Member

odestcj commented Sep 30, 2013

Agreed. @OTL, would you be willing to submit a pull request with your suggested revision.

Thanks for catching this!

@dabertram
Copy link
Contributor

this might break my code for service providers connected via rosbridge, I will keep an eye on this topic..

@OTL
Copy link
Contributor Author

OTL commented Sep 30, 2013

I opened #56 .

@rctoris
Copy link
Contributor

rctoris commented Sep 30, 2013

It is implemented to be just an extra field in the protocol so it shouldn't break anything (i.e., you can just ignore it)

@jihoonl
Copy link
Member

jihoonl commented Mar 11, 2014

The pull request should have resolved this issue.

@jihoonl jihoonl closed this as completed Mar 11, 2014
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

6 participants