Controller Manager recovery from invalid URDF errors

[VitezGabriela]

Goal:

Update the Controller Manager to handle errors when the ResourceManager fails to initialize due to an invalid URDF or faulty hardware plugin.

Behavior:

• Catch exceptions caused by parsing invalid URDFs during initialization
• Log error messages
• Reset the resource_manager_ pointer to a minimal, safe state.
• Continue waiting for a valid robot_description to be published

Observations:

The Controller Manager now no longer crashes on invalid URDFs. Instead, it safely recovers by initializing the resource_manager_ pointer to a minimal state, allowing the controller manager to continue operating and respond to future valid robot descriptions.

Testing:
Unit tests were created with multiple invalid URDF scenarios. All tests passed successfully. Testing can be done by executing:
./build/controller_manager/test_controller_manager_with_resource_manager

[mergify]

@VitezGabriela, all pull requests must be targeted towards the master development branch.
Once merged into master, it is possible to backport to jazzy, but it must be in master
to have these changes reflected into new distributions.

[mergify]

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @VitezGabriela?

[destogl]

We should not move this, as it is not related.

[VitezGabriela]

This is a change merged from master branch.

[christophfroehlich]

still an unrelated change

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.32394% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.03%. Comparing base (60a7244) to head (ce6ade4).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
controller_manager/src/controller_manager.cpp	85.50%	5 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
controller_manager/test/test_hardware_spawner.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
controller_manager/test/test_spawner_unspawner.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
.../test_controller_manager_with_resource_manager.cpp	96.00%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2775      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.04%   89.03%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         158      159       +1     
  Lines       19587    19647      +60     
  Branches     1589     1595       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits        17442    17493      +51     
- Misses       1486     1491       +5     
- Partials      659      663       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	89.03% <87.32%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../include/controller_manager/controller_manager.hpp	97.29% <ø> (ø)
...er_manager/test/controller_manager_test_common.hpp	89.04% <100.00%> (+0.88%)	⬆️
...est_controller_manager_hardware_error_handling.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ller_manager/test/test_controller_manager_srvs.cpp	99.44% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
...ager/test/test_controller_manager_urdf_passing.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...er/test/test_controller_manager_with_namespace.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...t_controllers_chaining_with_controller_manager.cpp	99.01% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
hardware_interface/src/resource_manager.cpp	78.28% <100.00%> (-0.19%)	⬇️
.../test_controller_manager_with_resource_manager.cpp	96.00% <96.00%> (ø)
controller_manager/test/test_hardware_spawner.cpp	96.25% <0.00%> (-3.75%)	⬇️
... and 2 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[destogl]

A few smaller comments.

[mergify]

This pull request is in conflict. Could you fix it @VitezGabriela?

[fmauch]

I think, the clang and win builds raise a valid error. Also, fixing the Wreorder warnings might be good.

[fmauch]

What should happen with this test, then?

[VitezGabriela]

It is uncommented now and the test passes.

[christophfroehlich]

Please fix the clang errors. Earlier windows build failure is not directly related and will hopefully be fixed with #3204

New windows build failure IS related, please fix

[292](https://github.com/ros-controls/ros2_control/actions/runs/24187185504/job/70594996240?pr=2775#step:19:3293)
D:\a\ros2_control\ros2_control\src\ros-controls\ros2_control\controller_manager\test\test_controllers_chaining_with_controller_manager.cpp(125,40): error C2512: 'rclcpp::NodeOptions': no appropriate default constructor available [D:\a\ros2_control\ros2_control\build\controller_manager\test_controllers_chaining_with_controller_manager.vcxproj]

      D:\a\ros2_control\ros2_control\src\ros-controls\ros2_control\controller_manager\test\test_controllers_chaining_with_controller_manager.cpp(125,40):

      Constructor for class 'rclcpp::NodeOptions' is declared 'explicit'

[christophfroehlich]

Builds are fine now, thanks. Some high-level comments from my side below.

[christophfroehlich]

can we add a docstring to the new methods please?

[christophfroehlich]

still an unrelated change

[christophfroehlich]

Shouldn't parameter handling be done via generate_parameter_library? for example

ros2_control/controller_manager/src/controller_manager_parameters.yaml

Lines 261 to 265 in 60a7244

	overruns:
	print_warnings: {
	type: bool,
	description: "If true, the controller manager will print a warning message to the console if an overrun is detected in its real-time loop (``read``, ``update`` and ``write``). By default, it is set to true, except when used with ``use_sim_time`` parameter set to true.",
	}

and see params_ below.

I see this existed in initialize_parameters, but why?