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

Topic names relative to node's namespace #132

Open
mzahana opened this issue Jun 28, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Topic names relative to node's namespace #132

mzahana opened this issue Jun 28, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@mzahana
Copy link
Contributor

mzahana commented Jun 28, 2020

Hi @Jaeyoung-Lim

I noticed that some subscribers in geometric_controller.cpp has topics with respect to / namespace. Would it be better to keep it with respect to the node's namespace? Just like other subscribers in the same node.

@Jaeyoung-Lim
Copy link
Owner

@mzahana That is a very good point. It would make sense that we fix this properly.

The reason I was using absolute namespaces was because usually ROS topic namespaces become quite fragile depending on your launchfile. Therefore I took a easy cut to get it "always" work with mavros. However, this is clearly a hack and would not scale if we have multiple instances.

Do you have any good usecases for this? Did this aspect of the code block you in any usecase?

@mzahana
Copy link
Contributor Author

mzahana commented Jun 29, 2020

An obvious use case is when you run multiple instances for multi-drone setup. With the current setup it fails. A straight forward fix is to keep the topics and params relative to the node's namespace. Namespaces are expected to be defined in launch files using <group ns="namepsace"> tags.

@Jaeyoung-Lim Jaeyoung-Lim added the question Further information is requested label Oct 12, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants