update basic tutorials for foxy

[mikaelarguedas]

Signed-off-by: Mikael Arguedas mikael.arguedas@gmail.com

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #201 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #201   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.00%   60.00%           
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines         565      565           
  Branches       52       52           
=======================================
  Hits          339      339           
  Misses        212      212           
  Partials       14       14           

Flag	Coverage Δ
#unittests	60.00% <ø> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 9c3c42f...2d2ab6d. Read the comment docs.

[ruffsl]

nit: no white space needed.

[mikaelarguedas]

👍 see 2d2ab6d

[ivanpauno]

LGTM!

There are some parts of the tutorial that still sound like each Node can have independent security settings, e.g.:

The previous demo used authentication and encryption, but not access control, which means that any authenticated node would be able to publish and subscribe to any data stream (aka topic). To increase the level of security in the system, you can define strict limits, known as access control, which restrict what each node is able to do. For example, one node would be able to publish to a particular topic, and another node might be able to subscribe to that topic. To do this, we will use the sample policy file provided in examples/sample_policy.xml.

[mikaelarguedas]

There are some parts of the tutorial that still sound like each Node can have independent security settings, e.g.:

@ivanpauno I'm not sure what the best wording for this would be, we could replace "node" with "process" but apart from that I'm not sure how to add correctness without adding complexity.
Did you have a wording suggestion in mind ?

[ivanpauno]

@ivanpauno I'm not sure what the best wording for this would be, we could replace "node" with "process" but apart from that I'm not sure how to add correctness without adding complexity.
Did you have a wording suggestion in mind ?

Not much more than that, my idea was to replace node with process everywhere (or almost everywhere).

I think it can be done in a follow-up if you want, as this makes the tutorial work again.

[mikaelarguedas]

I gave that an unsatisfactory try so I'll just merge this as is as suggested to make fix the tutorial and revisit the wording at a later date. thanks @ivanpauno for the feedback