API review

Proposer: David Gossow

Present at review:

List reviewers

visualization_msgs/InteractiveMarker
visualization_msgs/InteractiveMarkerControl
visualization_msgs/InteractiveMarkerFeedback
visualization_msgs/InteractiveMarkerPose
visualization_msgs/InteractiveMarkerUpdate
visualization_msgs/Menu
visualization_msgs/MenuEntry

Question / concerns / comments

Enter your thoughts on the API and any questions / concerns you have here. Please sign your name. Anything you want to address in the API review should be marked down here before the start of the meeting.

kwc:

Minor: KEEP_ALIVE values are different in messages (0 vs. 2) [DONE]
InteractiveMarkerControl still has a todo re: orientation [DONE]
InteractiveMarkerFeedback: Header must be first field [DONE]
InteractiveMarker: "If this is set to 0," -> "If the timestamp is set to 0" [DONE]
InteractiveMarkerUpdate: byte -> uint8 [DONE]

dgossow: new proposed Menu message organization [DONE]

Menu: delete this message
InteractiveMarker: Menu menu -> MenuEntry[] entries
MenuEntry:

uint32 id
# 0 is root
uint32 parent_id
# menu / entry title
string title

# command to be executed / transmitted back
string command

# What kind of command does this menu entry contain?
# Default: do nothing, only send back feedback message
string command_type

Proposed changes to command_type:

# send menu entry ID as feedback
uint8 FEEDBACK=0
uint8 ROSRUN=1
uint8 ROSLAUNCH=2
uint8 command_type

InteractiveMarkerUpdate: replace INIT protocol with a separate latched topic that contains the global state. client is responsible for achieving sync. Pros: works with rosbag, gets rid of funkiness with subscriber callback consistency. Cons: does not allow two servers within the same roscpp process.

Meeting agenda

To be filled out by proposer based on comments gathered during API review period

Conclusion

Stack status change mark change manifest)

$/!\$ Action items that need to be taken.
Major issues that need to be resolved