Support tf_static 2to1

[pawelirh]

Changes

This PR allows to use of dynamic_bridge with /tf_static topic in the 2to1 direction of bridging.
Due to an invalid qos policy, the ROS2 subscriber created by the bridge was not able to receive the tf_static message. Furthermore, the ROS publisher wasn't latching the message.

• For tf_static bridging in 2to1 direction special rules are applied
• ROS2 subscriber special qos (reliable, keep all, transient local)
• ROS publisher latching enabled

[weidinger-c]

Is this already on the main branch for humble? I still cannot latch tf_static messages in ROS 1 Noetic. Both for dynamic and parameter bridge.

[pawelirh]

The master branch (same as foxy) has this rule applied in the ROS->ROS2 direction. This PR implements the corresponding change but allows to port of the tf_static message in the reverse direction ROS2->ROS too.

Feel free to use my fork until changes here are not merged. -> https://github.com/hsrn24/ros1_bridge/tree/foxy
IMPORTANT: Changes are applied only in dynamic_bridge on a foxy branch

[weidinger-c]

Thanks for your reply, but I am only using the parameter_bridge, because I only need a small subset of a large amount of topics bridged. So I guess I need to wait for the fix on the parameter bridge.

[pawelirh]

I don't think it's gonna happen shortly.

However, the parameter_bridge allows for configuring the QoS. So theoretically you can achieve demanded behavior by doing so (I didn't try running parameter_bridge).

Did you check out this link?
https://github.com/ros2/ros1_bridge?tab=readme-ov-file#parametrizing-quality-of-service

[weidinger-c]

Yes I am using the special QoS settings for tf_static from the ros_bridge readme, but still have no success for ROS2 -> ROS1, because it seems that the bridged ROS1 static tfs are not latching publishers.

[Mat198]

I tested this PR with ROS 2 (Humble) <-> ROS 1 (Noetic) and it works correctly. Why is it not merged?

[Alby407]

Tested on Jazzy, does not work.