I think we'd want the introspect-able range for parameter validation to be an automatic operation as opposed to redundant custom validation checks written in code. My goal was to achieve this in the interim through a [parameter validator class](
https://github.com/ros-planning/navigation2/pull/196) with optional upper/lower bound arguments passed for parameters. I do think having this as optional meta-info on the parameters as @wjwwood mentioned as TODO is a better option going forward with perhaps a validation function written in the ROS2 parameters code to protect from parameter changes that violate.
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/dynamic-reconfigure-porting/6497/13) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)