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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
fuse -> ROS 2 fuse_core : Nodes and Waitables #284
fuse -> ROS 2 fuse_core : Nodes and Waitables #284
Changes from 12 commits
307262a
2acc6c0
5526ab0
81aead6
21c2134
9fca67e
87bc05f
ee39c45
fb52543
ba64b63
54f16b3
72fe062
282275c
cdeca18
7f463a9
b7480f8
3e38f8d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
It looks like the node is unused except for adding the waitable to the executor.
Maybe we could pass the node or node interfaces via
MotionModel::Initialize()
? That eliminates the extra context and node, and it looks doable higher in the stack whereMotionModel::initialize()
is called by anOptimizer
which does have a Node.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.
The node here is mostly used to structure parameters in the config files
It's reasonable to run the graph with dozens of named motion_models, and each one needs a unique name and parameters, each motion model can be associated with a different physical component that may or may not be included in any given deployment.
The separated node also allows complex motion_models (usually associated with a single robot chassis) to be targeted by ros cli tools as a separate entity in the ROS graph
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.
@BrettRD would you say that it's preferable then to keep the nodes separated? This was one of the places I planned to circle back on to try to combine it all into a single node (with the iffy bit being what happens when all the callback queues are merged), but the point you raised about CLI tools is pretty valid..
I'm not sure of the implications on lifecycle nodes and node components though.
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.
I don't know what's better. (edit: it's a pretty huge API divergence to change the shape of Fuse on the node graph)
Have a think about sensor_models and fuse_publishers too, they will need to interact with sensor nodes and planning tools that will definitely appear under ros namespaces, so it would be nice for a plugin to exist in the node graph under the relevant namespace
One node wouldn't be a disaster.
You can still isolate device-specific configs into separate conf-only packages and load multiple config files into the optimiser node at launch.
However, if it's one node, it's going to make a blob in the node graph so dense it'll become a running joke. edit: (I have this exact problem exposing gstreamer properties on a pipeline node, it's not unmanageable)
I was expecting to run separate nodes and have to do some fancy footwork to allow fuse_optimiser to side-load its plugins into its host composable node container, and then have a lot of trouble getting access to the parameters.
Either that, or have fuse_optimiser inherit from container, and cause a headache when any other package tries to do the same
I haven't studied lifecycle nodes enough to comment there
I don't think the callback queues will be a problem; executors are built to cope with multiple queues, and most of the fuse plugins are sharing the one optimiser queue
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.
I think we can still structure parameters in the config file by prepending
name_ + '.param_name'
to each parameter name.I can think of a few reasons to avoid multiple nodes, but I'm not familiar enough with fuse to judge how useful it would be to a node per async motion model/publisher/sensor model. @svwilliams what are your thoughts?
Reasons to avoid multiple nodes:
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.
This is where my lack of experience with ROS2 is going to hinder me offering sound advice.
I can discuss the design intent in ROS1 and see if that helps.
Does any of that help?