Arm authorization

[ddatsko]

This PR adds the implementation of arm authorization server functionality, and is an extension of this PR in MAVSDK-Proto. It implements a server that allows user to register a custom callback on arm authorization request.

It also adds an example of plugins usage, which was tested with a PX4 autopilot and it's implementation of arm authorization functionality

[julianoes]

Thanks a lot for the contribution! This looks very clean and well done!

One thing I don't fully understand is the system_id passed to the subscription.

I assume the arm_authorizer_server is meant to filter for the correct system ID that it is responsible for?

[ddatsko]

Thanks for the comment! Regarding the system_id, I was following the logic documented in MavLink MAV_CMD_ARM_AUTHORIZATION_REQUEST. As I understand, arm_authorizer_server can be a separate instance, responsible for arm authorization for multiple systems with different ids. So the user callback can make a decision based on the system_id and its knowledge about that system (e.g. weather conditions are suitable for one system, but not for another)

[julianoes]

I think you're right in terms of system id. A component server doesn't have a notion of "connected system" like a normal system plugin does, by design, so it could potentially decide for any system, and this should indeed work as you describe.

[julianoes]

@JonasVautherin I'm puzzled why this is still broken.

[JonasVautherin]

Oh, I think the subscribe response is wrong?

See e.g. here:

rpc SubscribePosition(SubscribePositionRequest) returns(stream PositionResponse) {}

vs

rpc SubscribeArmAuthorization(SubscribeArmAuthorizationRequest) returns(stream SubscribeArmAuthorizationResponse) { option (mavsdk.options.async_type) = ASYNC; }

I guess it should be

rpc SubscribeArmAuthorization(SubscribeArmAuthorizationRequest) returns(stream ArmAuthorizationResponse) { option (mavsdk.options.async_type) = ASYNC; }

i.e. SubscribeArmAuthorizationResponse -> ArmAuthorizationResponse 🤔

[julianoes]

Ah thanks. I'll check that. However, why does it not show up when I build it locally?

Oh, it does, after a clean build.

[sonarcloud]

Please retry analysis of this Pull-Request directly on SonarCloud