Allow overrides in the vendor specific data type DSDL ID range #82
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tridge
force-pushed
the
dsdl-vendor-override
branch
from
c96308c to
bdef6c9
Compare
Member
|
@wiboticalex this is failing CI checks, can you fix? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request allows overriding DSDL definitions with ones that come latest on the path list when in the "Vendor-specific messages types" range indicated at https://dronecan.github.io/Specification/5._Application_level_conventions/.
With this, I can now add DSDLs with conflicting IDs to my
uavcan_vendor_specific_typesdirectory and decode the DSDLs as expected (as was the behavior back when we were using UAVCAN V0 when the DSDL repository didn't define anything in the vendor specific range).I think this is a reasonable approach since there are only ever 999 IDs allocated for Vendors, so the chance of collisions with existing DSDLs is relatively high as new public DSDLs become available. However, I would also be fine with a strategy such as the one called out in #30 since that would allow me to avoid the conflicting IDs in the first place.