Skip to content
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

Different FastDDS XML configuration files for the two sides of the domain bridge #69

Open
Vicidel opened this issue Jul 15, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@Vicidel
Copy link

Vicidel commented Jul 15, 2022

Hello all

I have a specific case I need to solve, for which I need the two sides of the domain bridge to connect to different machines.
I'm using FastDDS whitelisting setup with an XML file following the documentation here.

My issue is that the two ROS2 nodes, for example gateway_0 and gateway_1 use the same XML file. I want to specify one file for gateway_0 and another for gateway_1, but am not sure how to proceed.

What I'm looking for to start on this issue is the code location where the nodes are created to understand more, and maybe at this location I can do something to switch from the two XML files.

Any help on the subject is appreciated!
Victor

@Vicidel Vicidel changed the title Different FastDDS configuration files for the two sides of the domain bridge Different FastDDS XML configuration files for the two sides of the domain bridge Jul 15, 2022
@jacobperron
Copy link
Member

jacobperron commented Jul 15, 2022

I'm not familiar with how to specify a particular FastDDS XML file for one ROS node in a process. Specifically, I guess you'll want to somehow associate the XML file per ROS context (which has a one-to-one mapping with DDS participants).

Here is where ROS nodes are created:

auto node = std::make_shared<rclcpp::Node>(oss.str(), node_options);

and the ROS context for that node is created just above that:

auto context = create_context_with_domain_id(domain_id);

@jacobperron jacobperron added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 29, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants