feat: add ROS 2 bindings to the official specification

[amparo-siemens]

---

title: "Add ROS 2 bindings and protocol to the official specification" by SIEMENS AG

---

Related issue(s):
ROS 2 binding PR

---

The ROS 2 binding was finalized in the Bindings repository.
This PR adds the new ros2 binding in the Server Object, Channel Object, Operation Object and Message Object.
Along with adding ros2 to the protocol list.

[github-actions]

Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for creating your first pull request. Please check out our contributors guide useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[fmvilas]

I think there are many more places where you should add it. A quick search for the "bindings" word gives me a bunch of different results. IIRC, you're still missing operationTraitsBindings and componentsServerBindings, componentsChannelBindings, etc. Probably somewhere else I'm not remembering right now.

[amparo-siemens]

I think there are many more places where you should add it. A quick search for the "bindings" word gives me a bunch of different results. IIRC, you're still missing operationTraitsBindings and componentsServerBindings, componentsChannelBindings, etc. Probably somewhere else I'm not remembering right now.

Hi @fmvilas thank you for your help one more time, but i am not being able to find in this repo any of the places that you mention. Could you clarify where are them? I searched the word bindings and also checked with the last feat that I found (pulsar) and i am not being able to find them, sorry

[fmvilas]

You're completely, right. My bad, sorry. Looks good as it is 👍

[fmvilas]

@derberg @dalelane @GreenRover @char0n Mind having a look too?

[dalelane]

Why "ros2" (as opposed to just "ros") ?
When there is a future updated version of the middleware, would this require a new "ros3" binding?

(I'm unfamiliar with ROS, so apologies if the answer to this is obvious with context that I'm missing!)

[derberg]

/dnm

just adding the label so we do not merge accidently as this is a new addition, which means we will need to start working on v3.1

[amparosancho]

Why "ros2" (as opposed to just "ros") ? When there is a future updated version of the middleware, would this require a new "ros3" binding?

(I'm unfamiliar with ROS, so apologies if the answer to this is obvious with context that I'm missing!)

We think it definitely make sense to call it "ros2" since there are specific parameters related to ROS 2 that will not work with ROS. Evenmore, ROS is end of life so we believe that ROS 2 should be the name.