Skip to content
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

Tick-tock _complex_value -> _nested_data #13

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: rolling
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

methylDragon
Copy link
Collaborator

A method rename (tick-tocked) as requested by:

@methylDragon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • Linux-rhel Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

Comment on lines +1348 to +1351
/**
* \deprecated `dynamic_data_get_complex_value` is deprecated in favor of
* `dynamic_data_get_nested_data`
*/

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we just rename the fields in the struct?

I am assuming that the API of this package is the one in dynamic_data.h, and that the struct defined in this header is the interface that the implementations should provide.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@methylDragon methylDragon Jan 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we rename it, rosidl_dynamic_typesupport_fastrps (and any other dependent packages) will be broken until the other PR is merged. I am fine if we're okay with that, since this is targeting rolling (and we don't have to care about ABI (?)), in which case we should merge the two PRs together.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need an opinion from the project lead. @clalancette what do you think?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants