-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
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
RosTimer -> ROSTimer and PushRosNamespace -> PushROSNamespace, to follow PEP8 #326
Conversation
…low PEP8 Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we deprecate the old names to make the transition easier?
Do we have any linter complaining about this?
I was going to deprecate in a separate pr, since we could back port this one, but probably only want to deprecate in rolling. I just haven't had time. |
If you're asking about the way the class is named, it's not possible for a linter to know one way or the other... I guess you could say something specific like |
Wait, I'm confused. If we were to backport this, wouldn't we be breaking compatibility in old distributions? That is, anything that called |
This pr doesn't break API, it just adds new API (well rename and add an alias to the old name). No downstream code is required to change yet. |
I was thinking we could back port it as a convenience for downstream users that want to use the new class name in all branches (or have a single branch for Humble and Rolling and more). |
Sorry, I didn't see you added an alias when reviewing before. |
Follow up of #325 (comment)
I didn't actually see these being used anywhere else in the standard ROS repositories. But I did find a few places in the documentation: ros2/ros2_documentation#3038