[ros-users] rospkg API review (REP 114)

[Ken Conley]

Thanks to all who provided comments on the rospkg API.  Now that the comment
deadline has passed, I have added a summary to the review page of
proposed/adopted changes:

http://www.ros.org/wiki/rospkg/Reviews/2011-09%20rospkg#Meeting_agenda

I don't think it will be necessary to hold a formal meeting given that the
changes are fairly simple.

Most of the changes are minor or additions of missing APIs.   The main,
breaking change being proposed is:

rospkg.RosPack(ros_root='foo', ros_package_path='path1:path2')

to

rospkg.RosPack(path=['foo', 'path1:path2'])

As well a similar changes to remove explicit knowledge of ROS_ROOT and
ROS_PACKAGE_PATH from the RosPack/RosStack APIs.  The motivation for this
change is forwards compatibility and versatility (see below).

This change was proposed by Tully and I'm inclined to accept it barring any
objections (which you may not in the normal "+1", "-1" style).

 - Ken


Forwards compatibility:

ROS_ROOT, as opposed to just a generic ROS_PACKAGE_PATH, is mainly necessary
for constructing a system PATH; future changes will make this no longer
necessary, and thus make ROS_ROOT vestigial.

Versatility:

By accepting a generic 'path' argument, the RosPack class is decoupled from
any particular idea of environment variables, etc... It just knows there is
an ordered set of paths it operates on.


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ken Conley <kwc at willowgarage.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Dirk Thomas <mail at dirk-thomas.net> wrote:
>
>>  Good suggestion.  As this is the behavior of rospack, I changed rospkg
>>> to match it by default.  You can get the raw export by adding a
>>> "convert=False" arg to the get_export() call instead.
>>>
>>
>> great, thank you.
>>
>>
>>  A minor cosmetic issue is the printing of "READ_CACHE manifest.xml" in
>>>> rospkg/rospack.py:188.
>>>> I guest this output will be removed in the next release?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, this has already been removed.  I pushed 0.2.3 with the fix as
>>> well as updated get_export() API.
>>>
>>
>> It would be useful if the version number of rospkg could be determined.
>> This is not yet possible, right?
>> So could you also add a function which returns the version number of
>> rospkg?
>>
>
> Great idea.  Added in the next version:
>
> $ python -c "import rospkg; print rospkg.__version__"
> 0.2.4
>
>
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Dirk
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> ros-users mailing list
>> ros-users at code.ros.org
>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/**listinfo/ros-users<https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20111010/4432f81d/attachment-0004.html>