-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
Add try_update_params
method
#260
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
Apologies for the delay -- I'm not really on these repos much these days.
Given this is a change in behavior, I don't feel like I should have the authority to make that decision. I'm going to leave this up to @pac48 as an original author of the package.
This was introduced with #205, but as discussed in the linked PR I think that it should have a different behavior. We could also deprecated the current one and add the proposed method with a different name if you prefer. |
@sea-bass I think the change in behavior makes sense in this case. I think we should merge this. |
There are a couple other options I think we should consider here. 1. Make no change, rely on user library to check if
|
Isn't this what the
I'm not sure if deprecating the old method is necessary, as it was never advertised in the documentation. But I agree with your arguments and the suboptimal naming for the new behavior. @saikishor do you have time to implement that, or shall I open a new PR? |
@christophfroehlich I can take care of it. I just pushed some changes |
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.
Great. Let us also add both methods to the README..
Only return true when the parameters are modified and return false for others cases
I've also modified it to use the unique_lock as it is much better than try_lock on the mutex itself.
Related to ros-controls/ros2_controllers#1198 (review)