[Spawner] Add support for wildcard entries in the controller param files

[saikishor]

This PR aims to add support for the wildcard entries for the controller config files. This is very helpful, for instance, if we need to load the joint_state_broadcaster or any other controllers to different CM namespaces, we could reuse the configuration of the controllers or broadcaster by just having them with a wildcard. If not, we must generate multiple configuration files for each namespaced controller manager.

I've also added tests to test the same architecture. I've also made some tests with ros2_control_demos, and it works well.

Reference: https://docs.ros.org/en/humble/Tutorials/Intermediate/Launch/Using-ROS2-Launch-For-Large-Projects.html#using-wildcards-in-yaml-files

Earlier approach:

/rrbot_1/position_trajectory_controller:
  ros__parameters:
    type: joint_trajectory_controller/JointTrajectoryController
    joints:
      - joint1
      - joint2

    command_interfaces:
      - position

    state_interfaces:
      - position

    state_publish_rate: 200.0 # Defaults to 50
    action_monitor_rate: 20.0 # Defaults to 20

    allow_partial_joints_goal: false # Defaults to false
    open_loop_control: true
    allow_integration_in_goal_trajectories: true
    constraints:
      stopped_velocity_tolerance: 0.01 # Defaults to 0.01
      goal_time: 0.0 # Defaults to 0.0 (start immediately)
  
  /rrbot_2/position_trajectory_controller:
  ros__parameters:
    type: joint_trajectory_controller/JointTrajectoryController
    joints:
      - joint1
      - joint2

    command_interfaces:
      - position

    state_interfaces:
      - position

    state_publish_rate: 200.0 # Defaults to 50
    action_monitor_rate: 20.0 # Defaults to 20

    allow_partial_joints_goal: false # Defaults to false
    open_loop_control: true
    allow_integration_in_goal_trajectories: true
    constraints:
      stopped_velocity_tolerance: 0.01 # Defaults to 0.01
      goal_time: 0.0 # Defaults to 0.0 (start immediately)

With this change, we can have one configuration as below and reuse it

/**/position_trajectory_controller:
  ros__parameters:
    type: joint_trajectory_controller/JointTrajectoryController
    joints:
      - joint1
      - joint2

    command_interfaces:
      - position

    state_interfaces:
      - position

    state_publish_rate: 200.0 # Defaults to 50
    action_monitor_rate: 20.0 # Defaults to 20

    allow_partial_joints_goal: false # Defaults to false
    open_loop_control: true
    allow_integration_in_goal_trajectories: true
    constraints:
      stopped_velocity_tolerance: 0.01 # Defaults to 0.01
      goal_time: 0.0 # Defaults to 0.0 (start immediately)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.87234% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 86.84%. Comparing base (84e85f9) to head (21872b7).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../controller_manager/controller_manager_services.py	95.23%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1724      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.79%   86.84%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         116      116              
  Lines       10715    10745      +30     
  Branches      981      985       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         9300     9331      +31     
+ Misses       1062     1060       -2     
- Partials      353      354       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.84% <97.87%> (+0.04%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
controller_manager/test/test_spawner_unspawner.cpp	99.25% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
.../controller_manager/controller_manager_services.py	75.37% <95.23%> (+4.88%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[saikishor]

I've added the reviewers manually, as the Reviewer lottery job is failing

[bmagyar]

Thank you!

[bmagyar]

@saikishor I am wondering though where would it make sense to showcase this feature? Demos?

[saikishor]

@saikishor I am wondering though where would it make sense to showcase this feature? Demos?

Yes @bmagyar ! It totally makes sense.

[saikishor]

@bmagyar I've created an issue to follow-up. I'll take care of it soon, can we get this merged in the meantime :)