10000 Backport Request: PR #2617 (Implement generic service) for Jazzy · Issue #2826 · ros2/rclcpp · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Backport Request: PR #2617 (Implement generic service) for Jazzy #2826

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
TarikViehmann opened this issue Apr 25, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

Backport Request: PR #2617 (Implement generic service) for Jazzy #2826

TarikViehmann opened this issue Apr 25, 2025 · 2 comments
Assignees
@fujitatomoya
Labels
backlog

Comments

@TarikViehmann
Copy link

As jazzy is the latest LTS version, it would be nice to have the work done to generic services backported as without it it feels incomplete to only offer generic client but not service support.
The relevant PR #2617 has (as far as I can tell) no breaking ABI or API changes and (seemingly) does not require anything from rmw that is not already there.
Hence backporting should be doable I think (did so locally on my machine, there it compiles, but I did not actually use it yet).

Related to this, #2662 can also be backported (just fixes an erroneous comment).

There is also this PR #2614, but sadly it breaks ABI by extending an existing variant, so I guess this would be out of reach (but tbh, It is more of a QoL thing and I think jazzy would greatly benefit from my main request, even without this).

Thank you all for working on the generic introspection support, it is really awesome for folks like me that build generic interfaces from foreign frameworks to ROS.
@alsora
Copy link
Collaborator
alsora commented May 9, 2025

@fujitatomoya can you take a look?
It's possible that this is not back-portable

@fujitatomoya
Copy link
Collaborator

I think #2617 and #2662 are API/ABI compatible so that we can backport but #2614.

but we do not have any plan to do that, so if someone can work on the backport (code base could be different so might need to resolve the conflict and tests) that is fine, i think.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@fujitatomoya fujitatomoya

Labels
backlog
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@alsora @TarikViehmann @fujitatomoya
0