-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 568
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
Node logging in moveit_core #2503
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c42f73f
Node logging in moveit_core
tylerjw 2503535
prototype in logger_from_child_dut
tylerjw d83b147
yet another refactor
tylerjw 368c617
update migration guide
tylerjw e1c0709
rebase
tylerjw c5c7e81
Fix clang-tidy wanrings
tylerjw 3e3a622
apply changes from review
tylerjw ece2ab2
Merge branch 'main' into logger_moveit_core
tylerjw 2cec4ef
Update moveit_ros/move_group/src/default_capabilities/state_validatio…
tylerjw File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Honestly very stupid question:
or
do read loads better, right?
I would clearly support a readable wrapper over an awkward combination of MoveIt internal static magic (definitely not what god intended) TOGETHER with C macro magic (which was clearly invented by demons).
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.
Here is the issues I see with those two approaches.
functions
The macros capture the file, function, and line number from the place where the macro is called. If we wrapped the ros logging system in our own functions we would loose that.
our own macros
This is a more ergonomic solution but would require me to write macros that wrap the ros macros. That would be a lot of code to write, test, and maintain. I think this approach is better given that tradeoff.
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.
Fair enough. We could probably limit a convenience macro wrapper to the plain variants for almost all uses. That approach works well in OMPL and surely others. But then the question would be whether stream or printf-style and combinations might quickly blow up again if people disagree.
Still, an argument slot that only ever contains one generic term in correct usage should not exist either.
Between a rock and a hard place by design.
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.
Yea, I think in this case the ROS 2 logging interface is just worse from a usability standpoint. I want to reduce the amount of abstractions I maintain so I don't want to maintain a set of wrapper logging macros. For that reason I think what is in this PR is the best compromise for now.