Clarify tutorial creates a new msg type#294
Conversation
Instead of something else
|
Any ideas @ralph-lange, @FranFin ? |
|
Yes, 'message type' is used commonly as generic term for message types, services types, and action types together. In this context, I typically speak of 'custom message types'. Therefore, I propose to rename the tutorial even to 'How to create custom message types for micro-ROS?' or just 'Custom message types with micro-ROS'. |
that was going to be my suggestion as well. But I first wanted to make sure I understood the tutorial correctly. Perhaps "Adding support for custom ROS message types to micro-ROS" would be even more accurate. |
FranFin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pablogs9 @ralph-lange @gavanderhoorn What do you think?
| @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| title: How to create a new micro-ROS type | |||
| title: How to create a new micro-ROS message type | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| title: How to create a new micro-ROS message type | |
| title: How to add support for custom ROS message types to micro-ROS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems similar to my suggestion, which @ralph-lange wasn't happy with.
Perhaps "Including a custom ROS message in micro-ROS"?
That doesn't imply special support is needed (although I believe with the way ROS 2 and micro-ROS work, it is actually almost like adding support), and does seem to communicate that those are the steps you'd need to get your own custom messages (or someone else's) included in your local micro-ROS build.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like you proposal, @gavanderhoorn! It is short, precise and already implies in the title that the procedure is similar to that for custom message types in normal ROS 2.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, so here it is as a suggestion:
| title: How to create a new micro-ROS message type | |
| title: Including a custom ROS message in micro-ROS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only thing is, it doesn't mention services nor actions, so I could see some users getting confused when reading this, but not sure we can help that other than making it clear in the tutorial text itself this is the procedure to follow for those as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm ok with @gavanderhoorn suggestion. I assume that @ralph-lange also is. Please @FranFin commit and merge if you are ok.
|
Friendly ping. |
|
Just checked the new site: were the changes in this PR reverted or did some branches work on the same files without those changes getting integrated? The current site seems to show the old title still. |
|
I think that the merged commit was not the one containing the final title proposal. What do you think about this #302? @gavanderhoorn @ralph-lange @pablogs9 |
|
#302 looks good to me! |
I realise there are more things to change to fully implement this change, but I wanted to first ask whether the suggestion makes sense.
"create a micro-ROS type" sounded like support for a new board was being added, or something else which was "a micro-ROS type".
From the tutorial it appears a custom message is created and a package to host it, which is then added to the micro-ROS build and eventually built.
Is this correct?