feat(obstacle_velocity_planner): add obstacle_velocity_planner from .iv's development

[takayuki5168]

Signed-off-by: Takayuki Murooka takayuki5168@gmail.com

Related Issue(required)

Description(required)

Review Procedure(required)

Related PR(optional)

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

PR Author should check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.

• Read commit-guidelines
• Assign PR to reviewer

If you are adding new package following items are required:

• Documentation with description of the package is available
• A sample launch file and parameter file are available if the package contains executable nodes

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

Reviewers should check the checkboxes below before approval.

• Commits are properly organized and messages are according to the guideline
• PR title describes the changes

Post-Review Checklist for the PR Author

PR Author should check the checkboxes below before merging.

• All open points are addressed and tracked via issues or tickets

CI Checks

• Build and test for PR / build-and-test-pr: Required to pass before the merge.
• Build and test for PR / clang-tidy-pr: NOT required to pass before the merge. It is up to the reviewer(s). Found false positives? See the [guidelines][clang-tidy-guidelines].
• Check spelling: NOT required to pass before the merge. It is up to the reviewer(s). See here if you want to add some words to the spell check dictionary.

[takayuki5168]

I've done universe porting of obstacle_velocity_planner.
I will confirm it works well after @.purewater0901's map_base_prediction improvement.

We should carefully check universe porting commit.

[takayuki5168]

@yukkysaito Is it ok to use map in motion (obstacle_velocity_planner in this case)? Or should we remove it before merging this PR.

[yukkysaito]

Is it ok to use map in motion

Not good.
I have talked with @tkimura4

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #484 (8769a79) into main (4bd241b) will decrease coverage by 10.91%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #484       +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   10.91%   0.00%   -10.92%     
==========================================
  Files         706       8      -698     
  Lines       49835    1054    -48781     
  Branches     7116       0     -7116     
==========================================
- Hits         5438       0     -5438     
+ Misses      40016    1054    -38962     
+ Partials     4381       0     -4381     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...lanner/include/obstacle_velocity_planner/box2d.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...de/obstacle_velocity_planner/common/s_boundary.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...planner/include/obstacle_velocity_planner/node.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...e/obstacle_velocity_planner/velocity_optimizer.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
planning/obstacle_velocity_planner/src/box2d.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
planning/obstacle_velocity_planner/src/node.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...lanning/obstacle_velocity_planner/src/resample.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...stacle_velocity_planner/src/velocity_optimizer.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...lization/src/traffic_light_map_visualizer/node.cpp
...nverter/include/raw_vehicle_cmd_converter/node.hpp
... and 704 more

---

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 4bd241b...8769a79. Read the comment docs.

[takayuki5168]

The order of argument may be wrong

[takayuki5168]

(points, pose, max_dist, max_yaw)

[purewater0901]

Yes, the order of the argument seems incorrect here

[purewater0901]

const auto closest_idx = tier4_autoware_utils::findNearestIndex(
    msg->points, current_pose_ptr_->pose, std::numeric_limits<double>::max(), delta_yaw_threshold_of_nearest_index_);