fix: init tf tree visualization

vividf commented 3 months ago

Description

The calibration launcher in the edge auto project launches the calibration manager and also publishes TFs in the same launch file, which is different from the case when we launch the tools and play the bag (tfs, pointcloud, .etc).

In the edge auto case, the waiting_service jumps to the ready directly without changing the state to waiting_tfs, thus the init tf tree will not be able to visualize in the UI

(Status: waiting service)

tf callback continues listening until all of the tf are subscribed. (on_check_tf_timer stop)

(Status: waiting service)

it starts to check whether the calibrator is available (function: on_service_status_changed) (Status: ready)

This PR solves this kind of scenario when tf is published before the calibration manager confirm the calibrator service is available.

Tests performed

Notes for reviewers

Pre-review checklist for the PR author

The PR author must check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.

[ ] I've confirmed the contribution guidelines.
[ ] The PR follows the pull request guidelines.

In-review checklist for the PR reviewers

The PR reviewers must check the checkboxes below before approval.

[ ] The PR follows the pull request guidelines.
[ ] The PR has been properly tested.
[ ] The PR has been reviewed by the code owners.

Post-review checklist for the PR author

The PR author must check the checkboxes below before merging.

[ ] There are no open discussions or they are tracked via tickets.
[ ] The PR is ready for merge.

After all checkboxes are checked, anyone who has write access can merge the PR.

codecov-commenter commented 3 months ago

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (feature/new_api_documentation@52416ae). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
..._calibration_manager/sensor_calibration_manager.py	0.00%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## feature/new_api_documentation #188 +/- ## ================================================================ Coverage ? 36.56% ================================================================ Files ? 49 Lines ? 1403 Branches ? 164 ================================================================ Hits ? 513 Misses ? 889 Partials ? 1 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tier4/CalibrationTools/pull/188/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tier4) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [differential](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tier4/CalibrationTools/pull/188/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tier4) | `36.56% <0.00%> (?)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tier4#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

vividf commented 2 months ago

@knzo25 Not sure whether you saw this one :)

tier4 / CalibrationTools