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

[Ken Conley]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Ken Conley <kwc at willowgarage.com> wrote:

> 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'])
>

Sorry for the bad cut-and-paste, this should be:

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/20111011/5aab7947/attachment-0004.html>