Merge upstream main #12
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <grey@openrobotics.org> Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <greyxmike@gmail.com>
* Use latest stable Rust CI Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <mxgrey@intrinsic.ai> * Fix quotation in doc Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <grey@openrobotics.org> * Fix serde feature for vendored messages Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <grey@openrobotics.org> * Fix formatting of lists in docs Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <grey@openrobotics.org> * Update minimum supported Rust version based on the currently used language features Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <grey@openrobotics.org> * Conform to clippy style guide Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <grey@openrobotics.org> * Add rust toolchain as a matrix dimension Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <mxgrey@intrinsic.ai> * Bump declaration of minimum supported rust version Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <mxgrey@intrinsic.ai> * Limit the scheduled runs to once a week Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <mxgrey@intrinsic.ai> * Define separate stable and minimal workflows because matrix does not work with reusable actions Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <mxgrey@intrinsic.ai> * Reduce minimum version to 1.75 to target Noble Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <grey@openrobotics.org> --------- Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <mxgrey@intrinsic.ai> Signed-off-by: Michael X. Grey <grey@openrobotics.org>
* Update rclrs vendor_interfaces.py script This updates the vendor_interfaces.py script to also vendor in the action_msgs and unique_identifier_msgs packages. The script is modified to always use a list of package names rather than hard-coding the package names everywhere. * Silence certain clippy lints on generated code In case a user enforces clippy linting on these generated packages, silence expected warnings. This is already the case in rclrs, but should be applied directly to the generated packages for the sake of downstream users. The `clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq` lint was already being disabled for the packages vendored by rclrs, but is now moved to the rosidl_generator_rs template instead. This is necessary since we always derive the PartialEq trait, but can't necessary derive Eq, and so don't. The `clippy::upper_case_acronyms` is new and was added to account for message type names being upper-case acrynyms, like unique_identifier_msgs::msg::UUID. * Update vendored message packages This updates the message packages vendored under the rclrs `vendor` module. The vendor_interfaces.py script was used for reproducibility. The existing packages – rcl_interfaces, rosgraph_msgs, and builtin_interfaces – are only modified in that they now use the std::ffi::c_void naming for c_void instead of the std::os::raw::c_void alias and disable certain clippy lints. The action_msgs and unique_identifier_msgs packages are newly added to enable adding action support to rclrs. action_msgs is needed for interaction with action goal info and statuses, and has a dependency on unique_identifier_msgs.
|
After #13 was merged, we only see one commit 622e887 show up in the upstream PR, which suggests that was a squash-merge instead of a merge-commit. Are you certain that you did a merge-commit of #13 or did you possibly do a squash commit? If that was a squash commit then you'll need to reopen this PR and do a merge-commit of it, otherwise the PR in ros2-rust will be very difficult for them to review since it will contain a lot of extraneous diffs from previous PRs. |
|
Just to be clear, this PR has a diff of zero lines, but that's on purpose. The important thing is we need your main branch to recognize the individual commits that already exist on the upstream ros2-rust main branch, otherwise GitHub will not be able to produce an accurate code diff for reviewers. In order to have the individual commits on your main branch, this PR cannot be merged with the squash option, it needs to be merged as a regular merge-commit. |
|
In case it helps to clarify: When you see the option to squash merge the PR, click the arrow button next to it and select
|
|
Would it be better if sync'd my master "fork" with the upstream branch - this should allow git to determine that the changes are the same (and hopefully not create a load of conflicts) and reduce the set of changes to the pertinent ones? |
If you mean doing something like
I don't think there's any way to get around GitHub having the wrong diff without the commits from main being present on your branch. There aren't merge conflicts currently and there still won't be merge conflicts if you just do a commit-merge of this PR.
Git is very confusing tool and even my own mastery of it is limited, so no worries. I'm just trying to make sure that it's easy as possible for the maintainers to review the PR, and until we get these specific commits merged in properly, the maintainers will have thousands of extraneous lines in the diff which are actually coming from other PRs that were already approved and merged. |
|
I was referring to this GitHub feature |
In #11 I had merged the upstream
mainbranch into the PR, but possibly due to a squash commit the git history did not recognize that these commits were accounted for after the squash happened.This PR doesn't change any lines of code but will allow git to recognize that these commits are accounted for, allowing for a nicer diff.
Please do a regular merge commit (not a squash commit) on this or else it won't have the desired effect.