fix(simple_planning_simulator): change orger of IDX in SimModelDelayS…

[dmoszynski]

Description

During work with vehicle models from simple_planning_simulator,
I noticed that practically all models use a standardized form of the IDX vector - see the table below.
Such approach (promise) certainly makes sense if we want to make sure, for example, that YAW is always at index 2 of the IDX vector.

This is especially useful for the case where in one common part of the code (method) we use different vehicle models and want to use IDX vector indexes (without using enums classes).

However, this approach (promise) is broken in the case of the recently added vehicle model SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard - see table below.
In SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard ACCX is not on index 5 as in any other model but on index 6.
On index 5 is the newly added PEDAL_ACCX.

This break in the IDX vector form standardization, makes the code prone to bugs, for this reason I propose to provide such standardization also for the SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard vehicle model.

In this PR, I simply change the order of the IDX vector in the SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard model.

SimModelActuationCmd	SimModelDelaySteerAcc	SimModelDelaySteerAccGeared	SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard	SimModelDelaySteerMapAccGeared	SimModelDelaySteerVel	SimModelIdealSteerAcc	SimModelIdealSteerAccGeared	SimModelIdealSteerVel

Related links

None.

How was this PR tested?

The Autoware operation with modified vehicle model SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard has been tested using scenario_simulator_v2, more precisely this scenario and this branch - video below. (tier4 access rights may be required).

after.mp4

Notes for reviewers

None.

Interface changes

None.

Effects on system behavior

The SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard model vehicle has the order of the IDX vector changed - in order to try to maintain the promise.

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to the Autoware project!

🚧 If your pull request is in progress, switch it to draft mode.

Please ensure:

• You've checked our contribution guidelines.
• Your PR follows our pull request guidelines.
• All required CI checks pass before marking the PR ready for review.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 28.33%. Comparing base (b4d8e7c) to head (622232c).
Report is 62 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9128   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   28.33%   28.33%           
=======================================
  Files        1304     1306    +2     
  Lines      101077   101105   +28     
  Branches    39249    39250    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        28641    28652   +11     
- Misses      69685    69703   +18     
+ Partials     2751     2750    -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	24.11% <ø> (?)
total	28.33% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from b4d8e7c

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

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

[dmoszynski]

@xmfcx
Thank you so much for taking care of this PR. 🙇
By mistake I've removed the assignment of me in this PR - and I can not bring it back. 😞

I would like to confirm that I've been performing tests and reviewing the code to make sure that a numeric value (int) is not being used directly instead of an enum. I did not find the use of the numeric value - the enum is used everywhere in autoware.universe.

[xmfcx]

Thank you very much @dmoszynski for the contribution 🙇

@tkimura4 @zulfaqar-azmi-t4 @soblin I will merge it since it is passing the CI and it's a clear mis-ordering of the enums.

Please check within internal TIER IV projects if it is used in any other way and feel free to revert if so.