Revision history [back]

The transition from active to error processing does not exist in the current lifecycle state machine, so as it is, this is currently impossible. This question and this issue (which was marked as a duplicate) is essentially the same as mine. The answer there says to trigger change of state manually with the configure, cleanup, activate, deactivate, and shutdown member functions of lifecycle node, even though that was "discouraged" in the design document. However I think there is use for a transition directly from active to error processing as well as from inactive to error processing. I am in the process of creating a pull request for this functionality and I will update this answer when it is ready.

It would still be nice to have an example of the container class. I may ask that in another question later on, but for now, my new error transition will meet my needs.

The transition from active to error processing does not exist in the current lifecycle state machine, so as it is, this is currently impossible. This question and this issue (which was marked as a duplicate) is essentially the same as mine. The answer there says to trigger change of state manually with the configure, cleanup, activate, deactivate, and shutdown member functions of lifecycle node, even though that was "discouraged" in the design document. However I think there is use for a transition directly from active to error processing as well as from inactive to error processing.

I am in the process have created a series of creating a pull request for requests implementing this functionality functionality: rcl_interfaces#97, rcl#618, rclcpp#1064, and I will update this answer when to show how it is ready.used, demos#436.

It would still be nice to have an example of the container class. I may ask that in another question later on, but for now, my new error transition will meet my needs.