-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 143
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
Launch file for combined gzserver + bridge #533
Launch file for combined gzserver + bridge #533
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
namespace = LaunchConfiguration('namespace') | ||
use_composition = LaunchConfiguration('use_composition') | ||
use_respawn = LaunchConfiguration('use_respawn') | ||
log_level = LaunchConfiguration('log_level') |
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 imagine we'll have a log_level
parameter for gz_sever as well at some point. How would we distinguish parameters for the server and parameters for the bridge? Should we rename this to bridge_log_level
?
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.
Renamed in 66e74f8
|
||
|
||
def generate_launch_description(): | ||
|
||
world_sdf_file_arg = DeclareLaunchArgument( | ||
config_file = LaunchConfiguration('config_file') |
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.
Any luck with refactoring these into a separate Python module so we don't have to duplicate code?
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.
Any luck with refactoring these into a separate Python module so we don't have to duplicate code?
Apparently this is possible by creating a separate launch file for the common parts. I'll do it in a separate PR.
Co-authored-by: Alejandro Hernández Cordero <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
@ahcorde, is CI supposed to pass right now with 24.04? |
@caguero yes, I think it should pass |
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Agüero <[email protected]>
🎉 New feature
Part of #544
Summary
This patch lets you combine the functionality from #530 and #532 into a single launch file.
How to test it?
Use the provided
ros_gz_sim.launch.py
(modifyconfig_file
accordingly) to run the bridge as an executableYou should see messages of gzserver loading. Additionally, verify that you see the
/ros_chatter
topic:Confirm that no container has been created:
Now
CTRL-C
to stop all nodes and try the composable version:gzserver should be running. Verify that you also see the
/ros_chatter
topic:And confirm that a container has been created with both nodes:
Test it
Checklist
codecheck
passed (See contributing)Note to maintainers: Remember to use Squash-Merge and edit the commit message to match the pull request summary while retaining
Signed-off-by
messages.