-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 447
enable parameter update recursively only when QoS override parameters. #2742
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
enable parameter update recursively only when QoS override parameters. #2742
Conversation
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'm still surprised that this is needed. I see that we explicitly tell people not to change parameters in the post change callback:
rclcpp/rclcpp/include/rclcpp/node.hpp
Line 1184 in 605251b
* This callback should not modify parameters. |
But I don't remember why. Do you have a good idea why this was the case @fujitatomoya? I really think we should understand this before we workaround it.
rclcpp/include/rclcpp/node_interfaces/node_parameters_interface.hpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
no i do not have any clue on this. i guess this has been here for a long time before i know that... |
Summary:
|
@jmachowinski @alsora @mjcarroll any opinions? i would like to have this fix, so that we can have #2378 |
Would it be possible to add some unit-tests to show that the changes work? |
@alsora yeah, i will consider the test. thanks! |
rclcpp/include/rclcpp/node_interfaces/node_parameters_interface.hpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Tomoya Fujita <[email protected]>
cd05473
to
24e570b
Compare
…ion(). Signed-off-by: Tomoya Fujita <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tomoya Fujita <[email protected]>
@alsora @jmachowinski test and docstring are added, can you take a look? |
Pulls: #2742 |
Signed-off-by: Tomoya Fujita <[email protected]>
@jmachowinski just added docstring a bit more, could you check again? thanks for the review! |
Pulls: #2742 |
closes #2741