`rclcpp::Clock(RCL_ROS_TIME).now()` vs. `node_->get_clock()->now()`
Is rclcpp::Clock(RCL_ROS_TIME).now()
always the same as node_->get_clock()->now()
?
ROS Resources: Documentation | Support | Discussion Forum | Index | Service Status | ros @ Robotics Stack Exchange |
Is rclcpp::Clock(RCL_ROS_TIME).now()
always the same as node_->get_clock()->now()
?
Well, it looks that the answer is NO. I had some issues with this and wasn't satisfied with the answer so I wrote a small node to test these clocks. The test is carried out with Galactic. The complete code can be found at https://github.com/galou/test_clock and the source is below
#include <chrono>
#include <string>
#include <rclcpp/rclcpp.hpp>
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
class TestClockNode : public rclcpp::Node
{
public:
TestClockNode(
const std::string & node_name,
const rclcpp::NodeOptions & options = rclcpp::NodeOptions()) :
rclcpp::Node{node_name, options}
{
timer_ = create_wall_timer(1s, [this] () {timerCallback();});
}
private:
rclcpp::TimerBase::SharedPtr timer_;
void timerCallback()
{
RCLCPP_INFO_STREAM(get_logger(), "now(): " << now().seconds());
RCLCPP_INFO_STREAM(get_logger(), " rclcpp::Clock{}.now(): " << rclcpp::Clock{}.now().seconds());
RCLCPP_INFO_STREAM(get_logger(), " rclcpp::Clock{RCL_ROS_TIME}.now(): " << rclcpp::Clock{RCL_ROS_TIME}.now().seconds());
RCLCPP_INFO_STREAM(get_logger(), " rclcpp::Clock{RCL_SYSTEM_TIME}.now(): " << rclcpp::Clock{RCL_SYSTEM_TIME}.now().seconds());
RCLCPP_INFO_STREAM(get_logger(), " rclcpp::Clock{RCL_STEADY_TIME}.now(): " << rclcpp::Clock{RCL_STEADY_TIME}.now().seconds());
}
};
int
main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
rclcpp::init(argc, argv);
auto node = std::make_shared<TestClockNode>("test_clock");
if (node == nullptr)
{
return 1;
}
auto executor = rclcpp::executors::SingleThreadedExecutor{};
executor.add_node(node);
executor.spin();
rclcpp::shutdown();
return 0;
}
You need a running simulated time provider (i.e. a simulator) to test and you need to launch with
ros2 run test_clock test_clock --ros-args --param use_sim_time:=true --
Example of output:
[INFO] [1645622804.092181382] [test_clock]: now(): 2216.74
[INFO] [1645622804.092376229] [test_clock]: rclcpp::Clock{}.now(): 1.64562e+09
[INFO] [1645622804.092445844] [test_clock]: rclcpp::Clock{RCL_ROS_TIME}.now(): 1.64562e+09
[INFO] [1645622804.092512516] [test_clock]: rclcpp::Clock{RCL_SYSTEM_TIME}.now(): 1.64562e+09
[INFO] [1645622804.092567862] [test_clock]: rclcpp::Clock{RCL_STEADY_TIME}.now(): 199532
When use_sim_time
is enabled, RCL_ROS_TIME
type clock will use time source from topic /clock
.
But we have to attach the rcrclcpp::Clock(RCL_ROS_TIME)
to one ros node(and furthor one executor) to be able subscibe to topic /clock
and update simulated time stored in RCL_ROS_TIME clock instance.
According to this understanding, we can also conclude that, as long as the attached node and executor is not spin()
ing, the simulated clock won't be updated.
That's the behavior of node_->get_clock()
.
A standalone rcrclcpp::Clock(RCL_ROS_TIME)
have no way to subscribe to topic /clock
, then as a fallback strategy, it will behave like a RCL_SYSTEM_TIME
type clock.
Well, if the rclcpp::Clock
object on which you'll call now()
refers to the clock belonging to the rclcpp::Node
object, then yes, they are the same. These can semantically mean different things if you're talking about different clocks.
Looking at the source code for both, I believe they are the same:
For rcrclcpp::Clock(RCL_ROS_TIME).now()
source code:
https://docs.ros2.y org/foxy/api/rclcpp/clock_8hpp_source.html
And for node_->get_clock()->now()
source code:
https://docs.ros2.org/dashing/api/rcl...
Both are declared the same way:
RCLCPP_PUBLIC
Time
now()
The only difference I see is the first one is more direct method .
Asked: 2021-12-02 04:11:19 -0600
Seen: 7,291 times
Last updated: Sep 23 '22
[ros2/rclcpp] Threadsafety of Node::create_publisher<>
function callback using std::bind in ros 2 subscription
Check whether parameter is set or not for a ros 2 node
message_event support in ros 2
Is there a release date of ros 2 or more informations about it?
Is the planned ROS1 to ROS2/DDS bridge available yet?