load robot_description from other namespace

[RLi43]

Description

Add namespace to the topic to read robot_description

Checklist

• Required by CI: Code is auto formatted using clang-format
• [ / ] Extend the tutorials / documentation reference
• Document API changes relevant to the user in the MIGRATION.md notes
• Create tests, which fail without this PR reference
• [ / ] Include a screenshot if changing a GUI
• While waiting for someone to review your request, please help review another open pull request to support the maintainers

[sea-bass]

Thanks! For consistency, would it make more sense to instead create temp_node with the parent node's namespace using this constructor?

https://docs.ros.org/en/humble/p/rclcpp/generated/classrclcpp_1_1Node.html#_CPPv4N6rclcpp4Node4NodeERKNSt6stringERKNSt6stringERK11NodeOptions

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 45.56%. Comparing base (870b23d) to head (9f28b36).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...g/rdf_loader/src/synchronized_string_parameter.cpp	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3269      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   45.94%   45.56%   -0.37%     
==========================================
  Files         716      716              
  Lines       62393    62384       -9     
  Branches     7543     7544       +1     
==========================================
- Hits        28659    28418     -241     
- Misses      33568    33799     +231     
- Partials      166      167       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sea-bass]

Thanks for the update!

This works, but I am now thinking whether this was intentionally designed to not absorb the namespace of the parent node for some reason?

@henningkayser @sjahr Do you guys happen to know anything about this / is this change fine?