-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 139
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
feat(ad-api): add restrictions and options #602
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat(ad-api): add restrictions and options #602
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Takagi, Isamu <isamu.takagi@tier4.jp>
Signed-off-by: Takagi, Isamu <isamu.takagi@tier4.jp>
|
||
### allow_while_using_route | ||
|
||
**[v1.6.0]** This option only affects the route change APIs. Autoware accepts new route even while the vehicle is using the current route. The APIs fail if it cannot safely transition to new route. When set false, the APIs always fail when the vehicle is using the route. |
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.
The current autoware_adapi_msgs
version is v1.3.0. https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware_adapi_msgs/tags
So v1.4.0 seems to be better to bump up, doesn't it?
**[v1.6.0]** This option only affects the route change APIs. Autoware accepts new route even while the vehicle is using the current route. The APIs fail if it cannot safely transition to new route. When set false, the APIs always fail when the vehicle is using the route. | |
**[v1.4.0]** This option only affects the route change APIs. Autoware accepts new route even while the vehicle is using the current route. The APIs fail if it cannot safely transition to new route. When set false, the APIs always fail when the vehicle is using the route. |
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.
@youtalk
Your comment made me realize that there are two versions of the AD API: specification and messages. Since we are talking about the specification version here, v1.6.0 is correct. Because the specification version v1.5.0 has already been released.
I think it's necessary to create a correspondence table between specification and message versions, or to update the message version to match the specifications version even if there are no message changes. Which do you think is better?
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.
update the message version to match the specifications version even if there are no message changes.
I think it is more clear. Please update package.xml to bump version to 1.6.0 even there is no actual updates by next PR.
Description
Add restrictions and options for safety. Related to autowarefoundation/autoware_adapi_msgs#61.
See the release notes for v1.6.0 for details.
Pre-review checklist for the PR author
The PR author must check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.
In-review checklist for the PR reviewers
The Reviewers must check the checkboxes below before approval.
Post-review checklist for the PR author
The PR author must check the checkboxes below before merging.
After all checkboxes are checked, anyone who has write access can merge the PR.