Florian Gramß
Florian Gramß
+1 on raising my hand that this would be great for minimizing the hassle of creating additional xmls describing what the plugin already includes.. :slightly_smiling_face:
Hey @jan-kiszka , thanks for your fast answer! Yes, I fully agree on this. I do not see anything that would be dependent only on the IOT2050. But I think...
+1 from me. I would like to use this feature with ROS.
I would have needed to use the action wrapper quite excessive, as I was going to implement a behavior tree with it that mostly included larger sub-trees. As it was...
there are 4 uncommented requests from you that I will come back shortly.
> Considering the ROS 2 version of this effort, [node_idl / NoDL includes them in their spec](https://github.com/ubuntu-robotics/design/blob/node_idl/articles/ros2_nodl.md#parameter), I would argue this is a must-have for a complete spec. It's fine...
> The best way to get involvement from the ROS community would be via a post in ROS discourse! @Achllle https://discourse.ros.org/t/invitation-to-collaborate-on-asyncapi-specification-for-ros2/42915 Finally came around to get the discourse post together....
Thank you all! @fmvilas I have tidied up all open conversations. Agree that we should have the `$ref` discussion in asyncapi/spec#930 I hope we can finally merge this now 👍...
@fmvilas there might be another repo waiting for this to become official.. 😇 [ROSITA (ROS Siemens Introspection Tool for AsyncAPI)](https://github.com/siemens/rosita)
@fmvilas any update on the V3.1 minor release? 🙂