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

Be explicit about reliability in Lifespan demos #350

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 23, 2019

Conversation

emersonknapp
Copy link
Contributor

Explicitly specify Reliability policy in the Lifespan demos to be less dependent on defaults.

The Python version of this demo brought up the issue ros2/rclpy#353, which turned out to just be a difference in default settings between rclcpp and rclpy. The problem is fixed by making those defaults the same between clients (ros2/rclpy#356) and there is value in that use case, but there is a separate value in being explicit about the settings needed for this functionality to work as expected.

Signed-off-by: Emerson Knapp eknapp@amazon.com

…aults

Signed-off-by: Emerson Knapp <eknapp@amazon.com>
Copy link
Member

@jacobperron jacobperron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@@ -51,7 +52,10 @@ def main(args=None):

qos_profile = QoSProfile(
depth=parsed_args.history,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unrelated to this PR: I would recommend making arguments match the QoS setting for clarity. Briefly, this looked like a bug, assigning a history setting to a depth setting.

@jacobperron
Copy link
Member

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • macOS Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

@jacobperron jacobperron merged commit bb5874e into ros2:master May 23, 2019
@emersonknapp emersonknapp deleted the explicit-reliable branch May 23, 2019 23:31
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

2 participants