Support ROS-independent CI Builds #818
Conversation
marip8
force-pushed
the
update/ros-independent-ci
branch
from
95af2d7 to
56dca0f
Compare
marip8
force-pushed
the
update/ros-independent-ci
branch
from
56dca0f to
2f4c8ab
Compare
|
IMHO this is out of scope of industrial_ci. |
| @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ function run_source_tests { | |||
|
|
|||
| ici_step "setup_rosdep" ici_setup_rosdep | |||
|
|
|||
| extend=${UNDERLAY:?} | |||
| extend=${UNDERLAY:-} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This knocks out one of the sanity tests.
| @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ function ici_source_setup { | |||
| local extend=$1; shift | |||
| if [ ! -f "$extend/setup.bash" ]; then | |||
| if [ "$extend" != "/opt/ros/$ROS_DISTRO" ]; then | |||
| ici_error "'$extend' is not a devel/install space" | |||
| ici_log "'$extend' is not a devel/install space; skipping source" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, this is an important sanity check to test against misspelled parameters.
| export BUILDER=${BUILDER:-colcon} | ||
| export ROS_VERSION=0 | ||
| export ROS_VERSION_EOL=false | ||
| export ROS_PYTHON_VERSION=${ROS_PYTHON_VERSION:-3} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those are questionable defaults.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What are your suggested alternatives? Python2 is EOL, so Python3 seems reasonable. colcon is the only builder I am familar with that can build code such that a downstream ROS1 or ROS2 workspace can use it. The ROS version cannot be EOL since this is for a ROS-independent build. ROS_VERSION is required by other parts of ICI, so anything < 1 seems okay
Maybe at the moment, but I'm proposing this PR to support these types of builds as a feature of At least for ROS-I Americas, I think ROS-independent builds are going to become more common as we separate the core functionality of our tools from the ROS interfaces that make them convenient to use. As stated in #817, I personally already have several ROS-I related projects that could leverage this type of build today, with more planned in the near future. We could certainly gather feedback from others if there is a question about general interest in this capability as a feature. In my opinion, there is a ton of value in the ICI pipeline: nested builds, docker image creation, testing, dependency installation, etc. I would rather not re-implement this whole pipeline elsewhere when it only requires very minor modifications to support the builds I am interested in. Regarding the sanity checks, I understand the concern. What would be an appropriate way to keep them while being able to keep these added features (i.e., no |
|
What is so bad about sourcing /opt/ros? |
|
#834 should be sufficient, it breaks ros_prerelease tests, but I will have to come up with a better implementation for those anyway |
Mostly because I want to do builds where ROS isn't actually installed, so there is no |
|
The whole point of colcon, ament, and vcs is they are separate from ROS. Perhaps an alternative method is to contribute the actions directly to those repositories?IE - VCS has a clone action, and colcon has a build action and a test action? |
Addresses #817 to allow CI builds that do not source
/opt/ros/<distro>during the build.Here is an example CI run where this capability was used