micro-ROS / micro-ROS/system_modes
Should get_available_modes be influenced by inference
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 45
- Forks
- 13
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
If we know through mode inference, that a certain state or mode of a (sub-)system can't be transitioned to, should `get_available_states` and `get_available_modes` of (sub-)systems report accordingly?
Example:
* Subsystem A contains several nodes, e.g., node B
* If node B transitions into `error_processing`, certain states and modes for subsystem A are not available until errors in node B are fixed
* `get_available_states` and `get_available_modes` of subsystem A only report states and modes that allow node B to be in error_processing, e.g., degraded modes
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the get_available_states and get_available_modes entry points alongside the mode-inference behavior described in the example. Determine whether inferred unreachable states and modes should be filtered for parent subsystems, including the error_processing case. Done requires a settled design decision and corresponding verified behavior.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- robotics
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100