Update subscription callback signature and parameterize IPC

[mini-1235]

---

Basic Info

Info	Please fill out this column
Ticket(s) this addresses	#4691
Primary OS tested on	(Ubuntu, MacOS, Windows)
Robotic platform tested on	(Steve's Robot, gazebo simulation of Tally, hardware turtlebot)
Does this PR contain AI generated software?	(No; Yes and it is marked inline in the code)
Was this PR description generated by AI software?	Out of respect for maintainers, AI for human-to-human communications are banned

---

Description of contribution in a few bullet points

Description of documentation updates required from your changes

Description of how this change was tested

---

Future work that may be required in bullet points

For Maintainers:

• Check that any new parameters added are updated in docs.nav2.org
• Check that any significant change is added to the migration guide
• Check that any new features OR changes to existing behaviors are reflected in the tuning guide
• Check that any new functions have Doxygen added
• Check that any new features have test coverage
• Check that any new plugins is added to the plugins page
• If BT Node, Additionally: add to BT's XML index of nodes for groot, BT package's readme table, and BT library lists
• Should this be backported to current distributions? If so, tag with backport-*.

[mini-1235]

Opening this as draft so we can discuss how to parameterize IPC in the following places:

1. navigation2/nav2_behavior_tree/include/nav2_behavior_tree/bt_action_server_impl.hpp

   Lines 127 to 132 in 81e0769

   	auto new_arguments = node->get_node_options().arguments();
   	nav2::replaceOrAddArgument(
   	new_arguments, "-r", "__node", std::string("__node:=") +
   	std::string(node->get_name()) + "_" + client_node_name + "_rclcpp_node");
   	auto options = node->get_node_options();
   	options = options.use_intra_process_comms(true).arguments(new_arguments);

2. navigation2/nav2_costmap_2d/src/costmap_2d_ros.cpp

   Lines 74 to 89 in 81e0769

   	rclcpp::NodeOptions getChildNodeOptions(
   	const std::string & name,
   	const std::string & parent_namespace,
   	const bool & use_sim_time,
   	const rclcpp::NodeOptions & parent_options)
   	{
   	std::vector<std::string> new_arguments = parent_options.arguments();
   	nav2::replaceOrAddArgument(
   	new_arguments, "-r", "__ns",
   	"__ns:=" + nav2::add_namespaces(parent_namespace, name));
   	nav2::replaceOrAddArgument(new_arguments, "-r", "__node", name + ":" + "__node:=" + name);
   	nav2::replaceOrAddArgument(
   	new_arguments, "-p", "use_sim_time",
   	"use_sim_time:=" + std::string(use_sim_time ? "true" : "false"));
   	return rclcpp::NodeOptions().use_intra_process_comms(true).arguments(new_arguments);
   	}

3. navigation2/nav2_lifecycle_manager/src/lifecycle_manager.cpp

   Lines 35 to 38 in 81e0769

   	LifecycleManager::LifecycleManager(const rclcpp::NodeOptions & options)
   	: Node("lifecycle_manager", rclcpp::NodeOptions(options).use_intra_process_comms(true)), diagnostics_updater_(this)
   	{
   	RCLCPP_INFO(get_logger(), "Creating");

4. navigation2/nav2_ros_common/include/nav2_ros_common/lifecycle_node.hpp

   Lines 58 to 62 in 81e0769

   	LifecycleNode(
   	const std::string & node_name,
   	const std::string & ns,
   	const rclcpp::NodeOptions & options = rclcpp::NodeOptions())
   	: rclcpp_lifecycle::LifecycleNode(node_name, ns, rclcpp::NodeOptions(options).use_intra_process_comms(true), getEnableLifecycleServices(options))

5. navigation2/nav2_ros_common/include/nav2_ros_common/node_utils.hpp

   Lines 145 to 153 in 81e0769

   	inline rclcpp::Node::SharedPtr generate_internal_node(const std::string & prefix = "")
   	{
   	auto options =
   	rclcpp::NodeOptions()
   	.start_parameter_services(false)
   	.start_parameter_event_publisher(false)
   	.use_intra_process_comms(true)
   	.arguments({"--ros-args", "-r", "__node:=" + generate_internal_node_name(prefix), "--"});
   	return rclcpp::Node::make_shared("_", options);

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.77612% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...v2_graceful_controller/src/graceful_controller.cpp	0.00%	3 Missing ���️
nav2_smac_planner/src/smac_planner_2d.cpp	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
nav2_costmap_2d/src/costmap_2d_ros.cpp	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️
..._pure_pursuit_controller/src/collision_checker.cpp	85.71%	1 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
nav2_amcl/src/amcl_node.cpp	86.55% <100.00%> (ø)
...r_tree/plugins/action/controller_selector_node.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...tree/plugins/action/goal_checker_selector_node.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...vior_tree/plugins/action/planner_selector_node.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../plugins/action/progress_checker_selector_node.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ior_tree/plugins/action/smoother_selector_node.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...lugins/condition/is_battery_charging_condition.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ree/plugins/condition/is_battery_low_condition.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...vior_tree/plugins/condition/is_stuck_condition.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...avior_tree/plugins/decorator/goal_updater_node.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 49 more

... and 40 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[SteveMacenski]

I think we should have those metrics you posted on discourse on a page about IPC to showcase that it can be helpful, but also could hurt depending on the optimizations made by the middleware and your particular operating environment (so its best to test and find what is best for you).

This could be a root-page on docs.nav2.org, or perhaps on the Tuning Guide? I think a big part of this contribution is going to be related to documentation rather than programming to make folks aware (1) that it exists, (2) its not always better on, and (3) describing the metrics they might expect to see from your experiments to help pass judgement

[SteveMacenski]

This could just return a unique pointer instead. Save a large copy.

[SteveMacenski]

Ditto

[SteveMacenski]

Ditto

[SteveMacenski]

Here and in others: obviously we need to parameterize this (as you know)

[SteveMacenski]

Opening this as draft so we can discuss how to parameterize IPC

I assume the issue is that you are doing this in the constructor so you don't have access to declare_parmater() and get_parameter()? A couple of these are easy since the getChildNodeOptions() is after construction - same with BT Action.

While I didn't test, I think something like this should work

static bool get_use_ipc(const rclcpp::NodeOptions & options) {
  auto params = options.parameter_overrides();
  for (const auto & param : params) {
    if (param.get_name() == "use_intra_process_comms") {
      return param.as_bool();
    }
  }
  return false;  // default
}

// USE: rclcpp::NodeOptions(options).use_intra_process_comms(get_use_ipc_param(options)))

We can have this as a member of the Nav2 Lifecycle Node (though maybe implemented as a free function so it can be used independently as well.

[mergify]

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @mini-1235?

[mini-1235]

I assume the issue is that you are doing this in the constructor so you don't have access to declare_parmater() and get_parameter()?

Sorry, I should be more specific. What I wanted to discuss is whether we want to enable this via launch files or yaml configuration.

In fe1d30d I tried enabling IPC by adding extra_arguments in the node launch (for composable nodes), this works for (1),(3),(4):

1. navigation2/nav2_behavior_tree/include/nav2_behavior_tree/bt_action_server_impl.hpp

   Lines 127 to 132 in 81e0769

   	auto new_arguments = node->get_node_options().arguments();
   	nav2::replaceOrAddArgument(
   	new_arguments, "-r", "__node", std::string("__node:=") +
   	std::string(node->get_name()) + "_" + client_node_name + "_rclcpp_node");
   	auto options = node->get_node_options();
   	options = options.use_intra_process_comms(true).arguments(new_arguments);

2. navigation2/nav2_costmap_2d/src/costmap_2d_ros.cpp

   Lines 74 to 89 in 81e0769

   	rclcpp::NodeOptions getChildNodeOptions(
   	const std::string & name,
   	const std::string & parent_namespace,
   	const bool & use_sim_time,
   	const rclcpp::NodeOptions & parent_options)
   	{
   	std::vector<std::string> new_arguments = parent_options.arguments();
   	nav2::replaceOrAddArgument(
   	new_arguments, "-r", "__ns",
   	"__ns:=" + nav2::add_namespaces(parent_namespace, name));
   	nav2::replaceOrAddArgument(new_arguments, "-r", "__node", name + ":" + "__node:=" + name);
   	nav2::replaceOrAddArgument(
   	new_arguments, "-p", "use_sim_time",
   	"use_sim_time:=" + std::string(use_sim_time ? "true" : "false"));
   	return rclcpp::NodeOptions().use_intra_process_comms(true).arguments(new_arguments);
   	}

3. navigation2/nav2_lifecycle_manager/src/lifecycle_manager.cpp

   Lines 35 to 38 in 81e0769

   	LifecycleManager::LifecycleManager(const rclcpp::NodeOptions & options)
   	: Node("lifecycle_manager", rclcpp::NodeOptions(options).use_intra_process_comms(true)), diagnostics_updater_(this)
   	{
   	RCLCPP_INFO(get_logger(), "Creating");

4. navigation2/nav2_ros_common/include/nav2_ros_common/lifecycle_node.hpp

   Lines 58 to 62 in 81e0769

   	LifecycleNode(
   	const std::string & node_name,
   	const std::string & ns,
   	const rclcpp::NodeOptions & options = rclcpp::NodeOptions())
   	: rclcpp_lifecycle::LifecycleNode(node_name, ns, rclcpp::NodeOptions(options).use_intra_process_comms(true), getEnableLifecycleServices(options))

5. navigation2/nav2_ros_common/include/nav2_ros_common/node_utils.hpp

   Lines 145 to 153 in 81e0769

   	inline rclcpp::Node::SharedPtr generate_internal_node(const std::string & prefix = "")
   	{
   	auto options =
   	rclcpp::NodeOptions()
   	.start_parameter_services(false)
   	.start_parameter_event_publisher(false)
   	.use_intra_process_comms(true)
   	.arguments({"--ros-args", "-r", "__node:=" + generate_internal_node_name(prefix), "--"});
   	return rclcpp::Node::make_shared("_", options);

For (2), I need to modify it to return rclcpp::NodeOptions(parent_options).arguments(new_arguments);

For (5), I am not sure if it is actually used in the current codebase, so I didn't modify it for now

Let me know which approach you would prefer

[mini-1235]

I think we should have those metrics you posted on discourse on a page about IPC to showcase that it can be helpful, but also could hurt depending on the optimizations made by the middleware and your particular operating environment (so its best to test and find what is best for you).

This could be a root-page on docs.nav2.org, or perhaps on the Tuning Guide? I think a big part of this contribution is going to be related to documentation rather than programming to make folks aware (1) that it exists, (2) its not always better on, and (3) describing the metrics they might expect to see from your experiments to help pass judgement

I have opened a PR here ros-navigation/docs.nav2.org#835 to document IPC. I also briefly mention composition, RMW, and QoS. Let me know if there are other details you would like me to add :)