Skip to content

Conversation

njooma
Copy link
Member

@njooma njooma commented Feb 26, 2025

@njooma njooma requested a review from a team as a code owner February 26, 2025 17:58
Copy link
Member

@stuqdog stuqdog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code looks reasonable to me! I wonder if it's not a bit safer to invert the logic here though? It's a bit more annoying for us to maintain but if a new method is added and we completely forget whether or not to consider the sessions aspect of it, it seems to me that it's safer to assume that we should have sessions and risk annoying/noisy error messages rather than assume that we shouldn't have sessions and risk that an actuating process continues after connectivity is lost.

@njooma
Copy link
Member Author

njooma commented Feb 26, 2025

Agreed -- see note in the python SDK PR as to why I did it this way instead of the inverse

@njooma njooma force-pushed the RSDK-9328/non-actuating-session branch from 7659d1a to 9cbff9c Compare March 10, 2025 17:43
@njooma njooma requested a review from stuqdog March 10, 2025 17:43
@njooma njooma merged commit fc49cb6 into viamrobotics:main Mar 11, 2025
3 checks passed
@njooma njooma deleted the RSDK-9328/non-actuating-session branch March 11, 2025 16:39
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants