`ogma-cli`: Structure of variable DB files for ROS is not explained

[ivanperez-keera]

Description

The README does not explain the structure that the variable DB files for ROS should have. Because ogma doesn't give much information to users when a variable cannot be found in the var DB, users do not know what to put in each field in the variable DB, and what effect it will have in the program.

Type

• Bug: README does not give sufficient documentation.

Additional context

None.

Requester

• Ivan Perez

Method to check presence of bug

The issue is with the documentation. There is no good, simple automated way to check that it is correct.

Because it's not a programming issue, visual inspection is OK.

Expected result

The README explains the meaning of the fields in the variable DB when used with the ROS backend, and gives an example.

Desired result

The README explains the meaning of the fields in the variable DB when used with the ROS backend, and gives an example.

Proposed solution

Add a subsection to the ROS section of the README explaining the structure of the variable DB.

Further notes

None.

[ivanperez-keera]

Change Manager: Confirmed that the issue exists.

[ivanperez-keera]

Technical Lead: Confirmed that the issue should be addressed.

[ivanperez-keera]

Technical Lead: Issue scheduled for fixing in Ogma 1.4.

Fix assigned to: @ivanperez-keera.

[ivanperez-keera]

Implementor: Solution implemented, review requested.

[ivanperez-keera]

Change Manager: Verified that:

• Solution is implemented:
  • [X] The code proposed compiles passes the tests. Details:
  • Build logs:
    • https://github.com/nasa/ogma/actions/runs/9193163983/job/25283541971?pr=144
    • https://github.com/nasa/ogma/actions/runs/9193163986/job/25283542012?pr=144
  • Build log archives:
    • logs_24061101146.zip
    • logs_24061101149.zip
  • [X] The solution proposed fixes the issues described. Performed by visual inspection: I have opened the README and checked that the new section is there, is in its correct location, and it's accurate. The issue is with the README. There is no good, automated way to check that it is correct.
• [X] Implementation is documented. Details: The change is to the documentation.
• [X] Change history is clear.
• [X] Commit messages are clear.
• [X] Changelogs are updated.
• [X] Examples are updated. Details: No updates needed.
• [X] Required version bumps are evaluated. Details: Bump not needed (bug fix).

[ivanperez-keera]

Change Manager: Implementation ready to be merged.