Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.35802% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.50%. Comparing base (8ab4bf3) to head (b98a682).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2414      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.46%   89.50%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         152      153       +1     
  Lines       17307    17385      +78     
  Branches     1434     1438       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits        15483    15561      +78     
+ Misses       1246     1245       -1     
- Partials      578      579       +1     

Why naming the transition unconfigure? Usually we try to stick to the ROS 2 lifecycle nomenclature, there is no unconfigure?
https://design.ros2.org/articles/node_lifecycle.html

This had come out of a conversation I had with @saikishor and @bmagyar some weeks back. @saikishor 's opinion was that unconfigure is a much more intuitive transition name and preferred for human facing interfaces which makes sense to me too(hence change is only for verbs and services) and @bmagyar also agreed that maybe we should make the change across the board (like in rqt controller manager, as you might remember we had a similar discussion at #2151) and maybe not remain tied to the node lifecycle naming scheme.

They might be able to much better explain their own views, but that was the reasoning at the time that convinced me to go for it

Why naming the transition unconfigure? Usually we try to stick to the ROS 2 lifecycle nomenclature, there is no unconfigure?
https://design.ros2.org/articles/node_lifecycle.html

This had come out of a conversation I had with @saikishor and @bmagyar some weeks back. @saikishor 's opinion was that unconfigure is a much more intuitive transition name and preferred for human facing interfaces which makes sense to me too(hence change is only for verbs and services) and @bmagyar also agreed that maybe we should make the change across the board (like in rqt controller manager, as you might remember we had a similar discussion at #2151) and maybe not remain tied to the node lifecycle naming scheme.

They might be able to much better explain their own views, but that was the reasoning at the time that convinced me to go for it

@christophfroehlich if needed, we can discuss this at PMC meeting

Why naming the transition unconfigure? Usually we try to stick to the ROS 2 lifecycle nomenclature, there is no unconfigure? https://design.ros2.org/articles/node_lifecycle.html

In the node lifecycle naming, there is even no such transition. So I think this is fine as it doesn't collide with anything.

In the node lifecycle naming, there is even no such transition. So I think this is fine as it doesn't collide with anything.

I'm not sure if I understand: The proposal here is to transit from inactive state to unconfigured, this transition exists and is called cleanup?

we decided in todays PMC meet to go back to cleanup, have made relevant changes at c5c3a13 and
40cf540

@saikishor have addressed your comments let me know what you think