Revert "Revert "Allow spin_until_future_complete to accept std::future (#1113)" (#1159)" #1160
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ivanpauno
force-pushed
the
ivanpauno/revert-#1113
branch
from
ab20581
to
32704a9
Compare
dirk-thomas
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good to me.
Please make sure a note about the API break gets added for Galactic (which @cottsay needs to create the page stub for).
|
Full CI:
|
|
Re-triggering Windows, as I can't grok a list of 1000+ failures to check if they are unrelated or not (we should have less failures now, after cpplint was pinned):
|
This was referenced Jun 10, 2020
DensoADAS
pushed a commit
to DensoADAS/rclcpp
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reverts #1159.
After ros-visualization/interactive_markers#72, we can safely apply #1113 again.
As commented in #1113 (comment), we can also consider an API compatible version, though I consider breaking API preferred in this case (the non-breaking API version is a bit unclean).