Validate parameter names

[jubeira]

Feature request

Validate parameter names on declaration.
The current name validation is simply a non-empty check.

Feature description

Complete constraints for parameter names TBD.
Name validation should enable to reject parameters when their name.

Implementation considerations

Nodes and topics have name validations, but parameters don't.
Following the implementation for node names and topics, it would make sense to implement the solution at RCL level and use that functionality in rclpy and rclcpp. See topic and service names design doc for reference.

[suab321321]

I want to contribute to this one

[nuclearsandwich]

@suab321321 please feel free to do so and open a pull request if you have any questions or want early feedback.

[suab321321]

I have started going through code,will update you soon

[suab321321]

@nuclearsandwich Do I have to implement this in rcl reposiroty like the ones used for rcl/validate_topic_name,and then using the c api I need to implement this in rospy ,am I correct?
And also is the rules for validating a node topic is given in design doc but not of parameters.

[jubeira]

@nuclearsandwich Do I have to implement this in rcl reposiroty like the ones used for rcl/validate_topic_name,and then using the c api I need to implement this in rospy ,am I correct?

Yes, that would be a good approach.

And also is the rules for validating a node topic is given in design doc but not of parameters.

AFAIK that is correct.
There is an open discussion here about parameter design and parameter naming in particular; so far there are some assumptions but I think it's not a settled discussion. Perhaps it's better to wait until a design document goes out and then work on this.

[ivanpauno]

AFAIK that is correct.
There is an open discussion here about parameter design and parameter naming in particular; so far there are some assumptions but I think it's not a settled discussion. Perhaps it's better to wait until a design document goes out and then work on this.

I agree, rules for parameter naming aren't clear now. We should wait until we start implementing ros2/design#241.

[suab321321]

Okay I will wait for it.

[suab321321]

@jubeira are parameters rules clear now..should I start

[ivanpauno]

@jubeira are parameters rules clear now..should I start

There is not progress in that discussion at the moment.