Closed apartridge closed 2 years ago
Thanks for getting to this so quickly.
Getting rid of the rosparam for specifying a settings file at startup (and relying only on the service) sounds good to me, and that
recursivelyFillInUnsetWithCameraDefault
machinery really helps with user experience +1One potentially surprising behavior is that if you
load_settings_from_file
, specifying a file that omits some setting, that setting will be force-set to the default value (due toFillInUnsetWithCameraDefault
) even if that setting has previously been set.Maybe a more intuitive behavior would be for settings that are not explicitly mentioned in the incoming setting file to be left at their current value, not be hard-set back to the default value? Essentially,
FillInUnsetWithCurrentValues
. I don't have any strong opinions here though, just thought I'd bring it up.
The behavior we have in the main C++/C#/Python API is that if a setting value is not provided, then it reverts back to camera model's default value (and not what was used for the last capture, for instance). So I think we want to follow the same behavior for the ROS driver. For example, it is preferable that if you load a.yml
in Zivid Studio or in zivid-ros and capture then you always get the same output, independent of previous state of the ROS driver.
No more comments from me, looks good :+1:
The review got dismissed so you need to re-approve it @runenordmo
Fixes issue #33.
Was based on PR https://github.com/zivid/zivid-ros/pull/59 from @danielcranston