Closed tony-p closed 5 months ago
Thanks, but I would not customize the retention policy through inheritance.
Also, it is not very clear what the intent is. What about adding a parameter in the constructor, such as bool latching
or change the vistual function to override to bool isLatching() const
?
Thanks, but I would not customize the retention policy through inheritance.
Also, it is not very clear what the intent is. What about adding a parameter in the constructor, such as
bool latching
or change the virtual function to override tobool isLatching() const
?
It is more flexible (some more discussion in https://github.com/BehaviorTree/BehaviorTree.ROS2/pull/42). For example a colleague wanted to clear it based on a port value, this can easily be added in the overridden definition, although for those particular use cases I think it was better to just define 2 actions
Maybe there are other uses cases basing it on the content of the message itself ... but haven't hit that myself yet
Definitely open to better naming
Fixes issue https://github.com/BehaviorTree/BehaviorTree.ROS2/issues/51