Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

/ros port removed by yarprun #15

Open
randaz81 opened this issue Aug 11, 2017 · 4 comments
Open

/ros port removed by yarprun #15

randaz81 opened this issue Aug 11, 2017 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@randaz81
Copy link
Member

Similar to #10
Try the following:

  • roscore
  • yarp server --ros (the nameserver will register the /ros port)
  • yarprun --server /ros (ARGHHH THAT'S BAD! No error message displayed!)
  • killall yarprun (gracefully quitting, no -9 signal is used, port /ros will be closed by yarprun)

now /ros port is no more registered on the nameserver...

@drdanz
Copy link
Member

drdanz commented Aug 11, 2017

Wow this is cool, it works also for the name server

  • yarp server (assuming default namespace /root)
  • yarprun --server /root
  • killall yarprun
    yarpserver /root registration disappears

@Nicogene
Copy link
Member

Nicogene commented Sep 5, 2017

I reproduced this issue also with: yarp write /root, yarp read /root, yarpview --name /root, and probably it happens also with other executables... I'm afraid that is more toxic than it seems 😨.
NetworkBase::exists() return true, but I think that is not checked in port.open() and it return successfully

@Tobias-Fischer
Copy link
Member

So it seems like this bug is not really related to ROS then, is it? The /ros port is just a special case. Probably a good idea to rename the title.

@Nicogene
Copy link
Member

It is somehow ROS related because /ros is not a "yarp" port, so it respond differently when pinged.
Consequences:

  • yarp clean remove it because it doesn't respond as expected.
  • Every other executable that try to open /ros will overwrite it in the nameserver because it doesn't trigger the address conflict.

I think that the portname validation is the only way to fix all these problems 🤔

@randaz81 randaz81 transferred this issue from robotology/yarp Sep 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants