Skip to content

Conversation

@SuperJappie08
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Introduce fully_qualified_node_name property to ComposableNode and Node, so the property meaning discrepency of node_name can be avoided.
(node_name on Node is the fully qualified node name, while node_name for a ComposableNode was the plain node_name as needed for composition_interfaces/srv/LoadNode)

Fixes #479

Is this user-facing behavior change?

Did you use Generative AI?

No.

Additional Information

ComposableNode looks like it could use a refactor, which could make launch_ros.actions.get_composable_node_load_request a method of the class.
Furthermore, I'm unsure of the need for the property redefinitions of ComposableLifecycleNode (such as node_name etc.).
Since they are inherited as well.

@SuperJappie08
Copy link
Contributor Author

There are no tests for this, as there is a lack of composable lifecycle demo/example nodes to test with at the moment.

@SuperJappie08
Copy link
Contributor Author

@christophebedard would you be able to review this fix?

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.

Composable Lifecycle components do not auto start correctly due to differences in node_name

1 participant