launch every robot and every entrypoint by anishk85 · Pull Request #296 · JdeRobot/RoboticsApplicationManager

anishk85 · 2026-07-28T09:07:24Z

Tested locally follow line runs on both python as well as c++

drone cat mouse tested as well for python.
both robots spawn in same world play pause reset functionality everything tested well.

also while testing the two entrypoints i found that an entrypoint inside a subdirectory could not import the libraries.
i added the root of the code to PYTHONPATH when starting them.

anishk85 · 2026-07-28T09:25:41Z

ros2 launch {self.launch_file} x:=… entity:={entity} {extra_config}
i am passing entity to every robot launch file
for example f1.launch.py doesn't have an argument but during testing it handled that i tested the robot spawned.

ros2 internally handles this and dont raise any errors.

javizqh

Only change the things related to your PR.

This is really annoying, I have told you multiple times to NOT modify anything else. It is not complicated to add a for loop, it is the only thing we require you to do

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:33:11Z

-                Boolean,
-                5000,
-            )
+        if robot_entities is not None:


javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:33:54Z

+                used.add(new_name)
+
+    @staticmethod
+    def wait(robot_launchers):


This method must not be static

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:34:07Z

    entity: str = ""
    start_pose: Optional[list] = []

+    @staticmethod


Move outside of the class

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:35:02Z

    module: str
    launch_file: str
    threads: List[Any] = []
+    entity: str = ""


Entity does not need to be stored

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:35:10Z


        logging.getLogger("roslaunch").setLevel(logging.CRITICAL)

+        self.entity = entity


Completely useless

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:36:12Z

        )

-    def reset(self, robot_entity=None):
+    def reset(self, robot_entities=None):


If you change this to accept an array, then the default must be an array

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:36:20Z

            launcher.unpause()

-    def reset(self, robot_entity=None):
+    def reset(self, robot_entities=None):


If you change this to accept an array, then the default must be an array

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:37:25Z

+        self.robot_launchers = []
+        self.robot_configs = robot_cfgs
+        for robot_cfg in robot_cfgs:
+            if robot_cfg["type"] is None:


This only happened before. Please, try to understand what I have already told you multiple times

in ra views.py it was changed right to send [ ] instead of none.
it was done on 14 th july right and ram hasn't updated after that i got it what all created a whole confusion here.

I told you multiple times after that day

hm you told me first about this on 10th july till that dat views.py has no changes so i never get what you meant about this.

sorry this created a whole loop of confusion several times.
i think i got this know i will resolve this.

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:39:21Z

-        if self.robot_launcher is not None:
-            self.robot_launcher.run(
+        for launcher, robot_cfg in zip(self.robot_launchers, self.robot_configs):
+            if launcher is None:


Same with this. I already modified this for you so the robots are a list and if one world does not have any robot then it is an empty list. I have told you multiple times

okk got it i thought you handled that on the 15th july in your last commit.

i didnt understand it early what you meant.

i got this time.

javizqh · 2026-07-28T09:44:36Z

+                raise Exception("User code not found")

-        _, file_extension = os.path.splitext(entrypoint)
+        # The workspace is built once, as soon as any entrypoint needs it


Why change something not related to your PR

javizqh

Right now you are compiling the code the same amount of entrypoints there are. Please stop writing code without knowing

javizqh · 2026-07-28T12:42:36Z

I will not review a single line of code more until you spend a couple of days understanding how the RAM works

anishk85 · 2026-07-28T12:43:37Z

okk i am going through the entrypoints part but i guess rest of the changes are ok.

javizqh · 2026-07-28T14:05:52Z

No, I don't need to review the rest after viewing such error. First comprehend what you are doing, then change it

anishk85 · 2026-07-28T14:33:27Z

No, I don't need to review the rest after viewing such error. First comprehend what you are doing, then change it

hi i know due that confusion i have messed up.
also before this comment i was looking into the entrypoint
so we will be receiving two or more entrypoints from the frontend
suppose we are getting this as an entrypoint the previous functionality and your comment of backward compatibility points to this earlier due to single functionality of the excersice entrypoint is limited to one only.
so here there could be multiple cases on to which this should work

a combination of py+py or cpp+py like this
so we need to loop over our entrypoints arrays and then extract extension from it(already being done)
if its .cpp file build() run_cpp() and continue this we need to do why continue to so that it can proceed with the further files
if extension is .py then run_python()

[
a.cpp,
b.py
] and more.

from this we might trigger it building twice beacuse when you call build it will build all so this is unecessary to prevent this we can have a boolean flag

now suppose it first run the mouse application process->mouse later it runs the cat so application_process->cat

we lost the mouse so we cant control its lifecycle right ?
so we need to store it
self.application_processes = []

so what i am planning and how states looks would be
compiled=false->cat.cpp->needs build?->yes->colcon build->compiled=true->run cat->store processes->next file->mouse.py->run python->store it->next file.

Now my question is ?
right now no excersice send two cpp files as per you i should be concerned with drone cat mouse only?
so sending two cpp there's an issue you know about this.

so for drone cat mouse and other existing files there could be one cpp one py.

so with which set of files i should go with ?

anishk85 · 2026-07-28T14:35:04Z

i was coding this then saw your comment and stopped do let me know i am in right direction or not?

anishk85 · 2026-07-28T14:42:33Z

Right now you are compiling the code the same amount of entrypoints there are. Please stop writing code without knowing

this was because i just restored humble devel version for entrypoint and working on entrypoints.

anishk85 · 2026-07-28T14:45:33Z

No, I don't need to review the rest after viewing such error. First comprehend what you are doing, then change it

hi i know due that confusion i have messed up. also before this comment i was looking into the entrypoint so we will be receiving two or more entrypoints from the frontend suppose we are getting this as an entrypoint the previous functionality and your comment of backward compatibility points to this earlier due to single functionality of the excersice entrypoint is limited to one only. so here there could be multiple cases on to which this should work

a combination of py+py or cpp+py like this so we need to loop over our entrypoints arrays and then extract extension from it(already being done) if its .cpp file build() run_cpp() and continue this we need to do why continue to so that it can proceed with the further files if extension is .py then run_python()

[ a.cpp, b.py ] and more.

from this we might trigger it building twice beacuse when you call build it will build all so this is unecessary to prevent this we can have a boolean flag

now suppose it first run the mouse application process->mouse later it runs the cat so application_process->cat

we lost the mouse so we cant control its lifecycle right ? so we need to store it self.application_processes = []

so what i am planning and how states looks would be compiled=false->cat.cpp->needs build?->yes->colcon build->compiled=true->run cat->store processes->next file->mouse.py->run python->store it->next file.

Now my question is ? right now no excersice send two cpp files as per you i should be concerned with drone cat mouse only? so sending two cpp there's an issue you know about this.

so for drone cat mouse and other existing files there could be one cpp one py.

so with which set of files i should go with ?

forgot to mention but linter has same duplicate problem

anishk85 · 2026-07-28T15:08:31Z

also had a doubt about this entrypoint.endswith(".launch.py")
cuurently as per my knowledge none of the excersice of robotics academy passes this as an entrypoint.

so is this related to bt studio ?

javizqh · 2026-07-28T15:21:05Z

No, I don't need to review the rest after viewing such error. First comprehend what you are doing, then change it

hi i know due that confusion i have messed up. also before this comment i was looking into the entrypoint so we will be receiving two or more entrypoints from the frontend suppose we are getting this as an entrypoint the previous functionality and your comment of backward compatibility points to this earlier due to single functionality of the excersice entrypoint is limited to one only. so here there could be multiple cases on to which this should work

a combination of py+py or cpp+py like this so we need to loop over our entrypoints arrays and then extract extension from it(already being done) if its .cpp file build() run_cpp() and continue this we need to do why continue to so that it can proceed with the further files if extension is .py then run_python()

[ a.cpp, b.py ] and more.

from this we might trigger it building twice beacuse when you call build it will build all so this is unecessary to prevent this we can have a boolean flag

now suppose it first run the mouse application process->mouse later it runs the cat so application_process->cat

we lost the mouse so we cant control its lifecycle right ? so we need to store it self.application_processes = []

so what i am planning and how states looks would be compiled=false->cat.cpp->needs build?->yes->colcon build->compiled=true->run cat->store processes->next file->mouse.py->run python->store it->next file.

Now my question is ? right now no excersice send two cpp files as per you i should be concerned with drone cat mouse only? so sending two cpp there's an issue you know about this.

so for drone cat mouse and other existing files there could be one cpp one py.

so with which set of files i should go with ?

Let me get this straight. When running the application there are 2 steps:

Compile the code: this is for C++ or *.launch.py entrypoints
Run the entrypoints

You do not need to reinvent the wheel about what to compile storing variables or something else. You just need to modify step 2

javizqh · 2026-07-28T15:22:43Z

also had a doubt about this entrypoint.endswith(".launch.py") cuurently as per my knowledge none of the excersice of robotics academy passes this as an entrypoint.

so is this related to bt studio ?

No, this is functionality that Robotics Academy supports as can be seen in video https://youtu.be/0vTp6PnbPcU?si=1TZe0eyYc0ow7a4u

anishk85 · 2026-07-29T15:40:08Z

Hi i am done with the entrypoints part.

javizqh

You are wasting my times with the reviews.

The next one will be my last one if I see that you do not care at all

javizqh · 2026-07-29T17:37:22Z

+                raise Exception("User code not found")

-        _, file_extension = os.path.splitext(entrypoint)
+        _, file_extension = os.path.splitext(entrypoints[0])


Absolutely not. Can you tell me what happens if the entrypoints are the following:

["a.py","b.cpp"]

Answer: it will not work, because you have only checked the first one

yeah i know about this but earlier i pushed this then it was wrong too
below is snippet attached

when i was iterating over every entry point

according to me this one in image snippet is right but you denied with this i don't know why ?
even i tested with this approach i can share videos.

i didn't found any bug implementing this one

Please, take a minute to think.

Let's imagine we have the next entrypoints: ["a.py","b.cpp","c.cpp"]

Now, with this snippet you are compiling "b.cpp" and "c.cpp", then it is wrong because you are compiling twice.
With your latest changes you are not compiling at all because "a.py" is the first one, which is also wrong

yeah so that why i mentioned to keep a boolean flag earlier

i will make it true on first build

should i go with this? and do a final push

Do whatever. I will only do a final review. If there are major flaws or problems, I will not lose more time because I cannot be reviewing your changes and not doing my other jobs

anishk85 · 2026-07-29T18:34:12Z

leaving linter one since you mentioned about that.

i know its lintinig again and again the same py files but now i dont want to change that without discussion on it.
already a lot of stress this pr given to me.

javizqh · 2026-07-29T19:27:42Z

The linter is completely independent from the entrypoints. It uses its own list of files.

        errors = self.linter.evaluate_source_code(to_lint)
        failed_linter = False

        for error in errors:
            if error != "":
                failed_linter = True
                self.write_to_tool_terminal(error + "\n\n")

        if failed_linter:
            raise Exception(errors)

launch every robot and every entrypoint

e23ee91

javizqh requested changes Jul 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

anishk85 added 2 commits July 28, 2026 16:29

addressing first 6 comments

94c2014

Address remaining comments

92bca11

javizqh requested changes Jul 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

changes to entrypoint modifying only run entrypoint

df1d26d

javizqh requested changes Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

final one on entrypoints

c4ea747


		logging.getLogger("roslaunch").setLevel(logging.CRITICAL)

		self.entity = entity

Uh oh!

Conversation

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

javizqh left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

javizqh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

javizqh commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

javizqh commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

javizqh commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

javizqh commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

anishk85 commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

javizqh left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

javizqh Jul 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

javizqh left a comment •

edited

Loading

anishk85 commented Jul 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

javizqh left a comment •

edited

Loading

javizqh Jul 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

anishk85 Jul 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

javizqh Jul 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

javizqh commented Jul 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading