White list for capability server

osrf / capabilities

Implements the concept of capabilities as part of the robots-in-concert system.

Other

8 stars 26 forks source link

White list for capability server #34

Closed bit-pirate closed 10 years ago

bit-pirate commented 10 years ago

I'd like to be able to specify the packages, which the capability server checks for existing interfaces and providers.

The reason being that in the future there will probably be a significant amount of interfaces. If one does not specify (default) providers for each existing interface, then warnings are thrown on capability server startup.

The rocon_gateway uses both a black and white list and the app manager implements a white list by only loading apps, which are list in a file.

Example - app manager white list parameter (rapp_lists) set in the launch file: https://github.com/robotics-in-concert/rocon_app_platform/blob/hydro-devel/rocon_app_manager/launch/standalone.launch

bit-pirate commented 10 years ago

Follow up of https://github.com/osrf/capabilities/pull/25.

wjwwood commented 10 years ago

Upgraded to a pull request

coveralls commented 10 years ago

Coverage remained the same when pulling b3c275ae360ca3026522646ac30f5f88f3d52fd2 on issue_34 into 79a7a7984482f2d31b92d28f6c63f9584868a1db on master.

bit-pirate commented 10 years ago

Is it possible to black/whitelist whole packages?

wjwwood commented 10 years ago

I will do that, I was wondering about that while implementing. With blacklisting packages do we need whitelisting of individual capabilities still?

bit-pirate commented 10 years ago

Not important, but nice, I'd say. Imagining a package with lots of capabilities, some people might just want to use very few of them or might only have a subset of providers installed. Using black + white list would give them a way to get rid of the (default) providers at startup.

coveralls commented 10 years ago

Coverage remained the same when pulling a677d0594406a68c8f7e774aa1fb5f7c7051945d on issue_34 into 79a7a7984482f2d31b92d28f6c63f9584868a1db on master.

coveralls commented 10 years ago

Coverage remained the same when pulling 2741a78e44896794c2ec16f4960adc046f76b05c on issue_34 into 79a7a7984482f2d31b92d28f6c63f9584868a1db on master.

bit-pirate commented 10 years ago

Works great! Thanks a lot!