Fix two nodes launched with same name of /rivz2

[Juliaj]

Description

Address #991 where two nodes are launched with same name rviz2. The fix is to remove node name attribute when launching rviz2.

Testing

• Required by CI: Code is auto formatted using clang-format
• Validated the updated Python files are launched successfully and there is no duplicate rviz2 node.

[sea-bass]

Thanks! Syntax wise, this looks more complicated than just removing the name keyword arg, in that it does this but then reapplies it manually to one of the nodes using lower level args.

What is the difference in the node names between the original proposed approach and this? Unless there is a good reason, I'd opt for simpler syntax since these are tutorials for newcomers.

[Juliaj]

What is the difference in the node names between the original proposed approach and this?

@sea-bass , thank you for the feedback. I agreed that the syntax is more complicated. Below are the differences in terms of rviz2 node naming. My thoughts were to keep the node naming consistent with the package name. However, even with remapping rule, one of the node name still has rviz prefix.

• Before (taken from original issue report), duplicated rviz2 nodes.

/rviz2
/rviz2
/rviz2_private_133986940619904
/rviz2_private_133987075316320

• With name remapping change for rviz2. Three of the nodes renamed to rviz2 which is aligned with package name rviz2. The rviz_visual_tools_gui hasn't been renamed, some inconsistency.

/rviz2
/rviz2_private_139289413291728
/rviz2_private_139289816608576
/rviz_visual_tools_gui

• With removing of name="rviz2". rviz2 related nodes have naming of rviz which is different than the package name. All rviz2 nodes have the same naming prefix.

/rviz
/rviz_private_127771787398864
/rviz_private_127772324975040
/rviz_visual_tools_gui

[sea-bass]

Thanks @Juliaj, makes sense! I think the differences are small enough that I would favor the simpler code option, i.e., the last snippet in your comment. What do you think?

[Juliaj]

I think the differences are small enough that I would favor the simpler code option, i.e., the last snippet in your comment. What do you think?

Thanks @sea-bass , I'm good with that! Updated PR based on your suggestion.

[sea-bass]

Thanks for doing this!