The initial build file generation for robotpy projects was relatively
naive and purpose built to get `allwpilib` compiling, without supporting
all the available features.
This modifies the generation scripts to be able to support multiple
embedded libraries, which will be necessary for #8858, since `mrclib.so`
will need to be bundled along with the hal libraries. In addition some
cleanup was done to get the wheels looking more like what is in pypi.
#7695, #7696, #7697, #7701, #7724, #7753, #7861 removed various features
from the HAL, but forgot to clean up the handles, the WS API, or both.
Additionally, since AnalogInput is the only remaining analog I/O,
AnalogJNI was renamed to the more specific AnalogInputJNI.
I left "free speed" alone since that's the technical term for it. In
general, velocity is a vector quantity, and speed is a magnitude (i.e.,
a strictly positive value).
This PR also replaces the speed verbiage in MotorController with duty
cycle.
Fixes#8423.
User code:
- OpModeRobot used as the robot base class
- LinearOpMode and PeriodicOpMode are provided opmode base classes
- In Java, annotations can be used to automatically register opmode classes
Additional user code functionality:
- OpMode (string) is available in addition to the overall
auto/teleop/test robot mode
- OpMode does not indicate enable (enable/disable is still separate)
- The HAL API uses integer UIDs; these are exposed at the user API level
as well for faster checks
- User code creates opmodes on startup (these have name, category,
description, etc).
DS:
- DS will present opmode selection lists for auto and teleop for
match/practice. During a match, the DS will automatically activate the
selected opmode in the corresponding match period.
- For testing, an overall mode is selected (e.g. teleop/auto/test) and a
single opmode is selected
Future work:
- Command framework support/integration
- Python annotation support
- Unit tests (needs race-free DS sim updates)
- Porting of examples
Co-authored-by: Joseph Eng <91924258+KangarooKoala@users.noreply.github.com>
Support joystick outputs, including Rumble and LEDs.
Also requires an update to Joystick descriptors, as that has also
changed in mrccomm to support showing what outputs are supported.
This uses all the infrastructure we put together earlier to actually build and publish all the artifacts.
We might still want to adjust what is built by default to control CI times.
Signed-off-by: Austin Schuh <austin.linux@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: PJ Reiniger <pj.reiniger@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: David Vo <auscompgeek@users.noreply.github.com>
Instead of just having a max count for joystick values, there's an available mask of values. This is because in the future we're expecting there to be holes in the list of available buttons and axes. This updates everything to support that scenario.
Also, Joystick buttons, axes, and POVs all now start at 0 instead of 1.
As string_view operations on std::map<std::string> won't be integrated
until C++26, placeholder implementations are used which are less efficient
in a couple of situations (e.g. insert with hint).
Currently in the entire C API of WPILib we have ~8 different ways of handling strings. The C API actually isn't built for pure C callers (We don't actually have any of those). Instead, they're built for interop between languages like LabVIEW and C# which can talk to C API's directly.
For output parameters, the choice was fairly obvious. An output struct containing a const string pointer and a length makes the most sense. Its easy to use these from most other languages, and doesn't require special null termination handling. Freeing these is also easy, as if you ever receive one of these string structures, theres just a single function call to free it.
Input parameters are a bit more complex. To be used from pure C, and from LabVIEW, a null terminated string is the best in most cases. However, null terminated strings in general have a lot of downsides. Additionally, from LabVIEW there are other considerations around encoding that having a wrapper struct helps make a bit easier. From a language like C#, a wrapper struct is by far the easiest, as custom marshalling can make it trivial to marshal both UTF8 and UTF16 strings down.
The final consideration is its nice to have an identical concept for both input and output. It makes the rules fairly easy to understand.
WPILib will not have any APIs that manipulate a string allocated externally. This means WPI_String can be const, as across the boundary it is always const.
If a WPILib API takes a const WPI_String*, WPILib will not manipulate or attempt to free that string, and that string is treated as an input. It is up to the caller to handle that memory, WPILib will never hold onto that memory longer than the call.
If a WPILib API takes a WPI_String*, that string is an output. WPILib will allocate that API with WPI_AllocateString(), fill in the string, and return to the caller. When the caller is done with the string, they must free it with WPI_FreeString().
If an output struct contains a WPI_String member, that member is considered read only, and should not be explicitly freed. The caller should call the free function for that struct.
If an array of WPI_Strings are returned, each individual string is considered read only, and should not be explicitly freed. The free function for that array should be called by the caller.
If an input struct containing a WPI_String, or an input array of WPI_Strings is passed to WPILib, the individual strings will not be manipulated or freed by WPILib, and the caller owns and should free that memory.
Callbacks also follow these rules. The most common is a callback either getting passed a const WPI_String* or a struct containing a WPI_String. In both of these cases, the callback target should consider these strings read only, and not attempt to free them or manipulate them.
