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

Debug/mapping uuids #7

Closed

Conversation

LoyVanBeek
Copy link
Member

Follow-up of #4 Do not merge this, if this passes, I need to clean it up and provide a smaller patch also to upstream. This is for CI & testing only

@fmessmer fmessmer marked this pull request as ready for review October 21, 2022 12:19
…e applied

In determine_field_mapping, there was an early return inside a loop over all mapping rules.
IF there we any mapping rules but they don't specify field mappings, the early return made the function return without creating mappings automatically.

For a particular message type, ROS 1's uuid_msgs/UniqueID vs ROS 2's unique_identifier_msgs/UUID, the message definition is exacly the same but type name is not.
The only mapping fule defined in for unique_identifier_msgs/UUID is that it maps to uuid_msgs/UniqueID, but no field mappings are needed because the definitions are the same.

But, then we hit the early return (because the for-loop is exhausted without applying any rule and thus not `continue`-ing in a code branch handling a rule)
and return without applying the normal automatic field mapping generation rules.

By removing the early return, the other rules are applied and the mapping rules for handling the exact same message defintions are applied
…os2 to ros1, also check the existing such mappings"

This reverts commit bccc807.
@fmessmer fmessmer mentioned this pull request Oct 21, 2022
@fmessmer
Copy link
Member

this passes the build stage of CI - which shows the changes seem to fix the issue introduced in #4
CI now fails in the test stage - but we havent tested/fixed this ever since using mojin-devel so the tests might have been broken by #1 , #2 , #3

@LoyVanBeek
Copy link
Member Author

Failing tests in CI seem to only complain about formatting and not about functionality, although they don't test the stuff this PR tries to fix.

I'll go ahead and extract the beef of my patch and cut the debugging prints.

@fmessmer
Copy link
Member

merge #9 instead

@fmessmer fmessmer closed this Oct 25, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants