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
new package and interfaces for describing other types #146
Conversation
Is this ready for review, or what components are missing / still in flux? |
@jhurliman There are some TODO's left for me to update. We've been working on other technical parts of the REP lately so this hasn't made any progress lately. However, we will be returning to it before long. |
Also, we took some time to reconsider having our own definition versus re-using something existing like the |
@clalancette @wjwwood what next steps do you think we need to take to get this landed? perhaps a set of consolidated TODO items will help us get it going. are any further updates needed to REP-2011 before we can move forward with these interfaces, or have we solidified that documented design well enough that it's only implementation details now? |
@wjwwood would you mind also rebasing this PR on |
Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
cd119a6
to
eaed6b5
Compare
Rebased it on rolling. |
I've moved this out of draft pr mode, and I think it's ready for review. |
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.
Small nits, but other than that I can't think of any fundamental issues with the message definitions
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.
Looks good to me as is.
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.
LGTM (after fixing typos)
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.
@wjwwood on second pass, I have a couple of suggestions.
Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette <clalancette@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette <clalancette@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette <clalancette@gmail.com>
7a76516
to
90062b2
Compare
@allenh1 @wjwwood @methylDragon @emersonknapp @james-rms I've now done the updates to this PR that we discussed last night. I think this should be ready for final review. Here is CI: |
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.
lgtm
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.
Thanks for the update. Looks good to me.
The flake8 failures are known (and fixed elsewhere). The one additional failure is on Windows, but that is a known flake for right now. So this all looks good, I'm going to go ahead and merge this in. |
Still in development, but related to "evolving message types" REP-2011: ros-infrastructure/rep#358
There are still TODOs and known issues, but I think can iterate on those after merging this initial MVP. Merging will also unblock others working on related features.