description or comment field for data ports

[franzlst]

If I'm not mistaken, there is no way to add a comment or description to a data port. This makes it difficult to reuse library states without having to look at the code or sometimes even the LN/ROS message definition used in that code. This is especially a problem for generic object-type data ports.

I think a fourth column [Name | Data Type | Default Value | Comment] would be a possible solution to improve usability here.

Originally created by SebastianRiedela ([email protected]) at 2017-08-03 16:11:42+00:00 (moved from RMC internal repository)

[franzlst]

Generally we used to use the description field/attribute of the state to describe the interface of i.e. library states and so on. Generally is this not a direct mapping and is maybe not a possible unique map of information onto a port. But maybe you wanna do something else like annotation with this?

But if we create this feature it will be not the best idea to add a comment column because this one will be hard to use and not so useful because mostly out of side. Additionally, you have not written down all columns which there are.

At this point we also should really think about how much we gain from this and how confusing all this could become.

Originally created by @Rbelder at 2017-08-03 17:13:23+00:00 (moved from RMC internal repository)

[franzlst]

I think it is a very good idea, not only for data ports, but also for outcomes.

Originally created by @franzlst ([email protected]) at 2017-08-03 17:19:22+00:00 (moved from RMC internal repository)

[franzlst]

And it is an idea that we have discussed ones in the beginning and left unrealized for some reasons we never documented. But I think it was about the separate description stuff.

Generally this also could be solved by support of arbitrary types which has to follow some restrictions. What maybe now sounds complicated but could help to define more clear parameter and valid types. This types would have the description included.

Improve usability was the only gain which was named out, till now. So it is important to have a clear gain from this not a field which is visualized somewhere. Generally a rethinking of our data and logical port definition could be a good starting point because creating more and more attributes will not gain useability (or other properties) without a concept.

Maybe we have a real personal discussion on that and come back here with the outcome of those discussion.

Originally created by @Rbelder at 2017-08-03 17:39:14+00:00 (moved from RMC internal repository)

[franzlst]

One point that came up in our discussion: If you need the comment field for specifying a complex data type, then you directly enter that type in the type column, see this comment.

Originally created by @franzlst ([email protected]) at 2017-08-21 12:59:45+00:00 (moved from RMC internal repository)