refactor(pointcloud_preprocessor): blockage_diag

[badai-nguyen]

Description

This PR to refactor blockage diag node to work also with Velodyne lidar.

Related link

TIER IV INTERNAL LINK
Related PR:

• fix: add blockage for xx1 tier4/aip_launcher#191
• fix: correct azimuth offset tier4/nebula#112

Tests performed

• Confimred by logging_simulator that blockage_diag_nodes executed for desired product and blockage diagnostics result is published :

• The diagnostics result could confirmed by ros2 run rqt_runtime_monitor rqt_runtime_monitor:
  

• Confirmed the debug topics are published by rqt
  

Not applicable.

Effects on system behavior

Not applicable.

Pre-review checklist for the PR author

The PR author must check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.

• I've confirmed the contribution guidelines.
• The PR follows the pull request guidelines.

In-review checklist for the PR reviewers

The PR reviewers must check the checkboxes below before approval.

• The PR follows the pull request guidelines.

Post-review checklist for the PR author

The PR author must check the checkboxes below before merging.

• There are no open discussions or they are tracked via tickets.

After all checkboxes are checked, anyone who has write access can merge the PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 30 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 14.67%. Comparing base (754742e) to head (8ae646b).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...cessor/src/blockage_diag/blockage_diag_nodelet.cpp	0.00%	30 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5932      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   14.67%   14.67%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1900     1900              
  Lines      130340   130345       +5     
  Branches    38370    38370              
==========================================
  Hits        19122    19122              
- Misses      89759    89764       +5     
  Partials    21459    21459              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	5.24% <0.00%> (?)
total	14.67% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 754742e

*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.

[kyoichi-sugahara]

@badai-nguyen

https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/pull/5932/files#diff-e1ecba84e49b0d4c692b47318fc8347f109aa9ef03c5758e64c6c6d3e0e8776aR80

Based on observing other parts of the code, it seems that the value of blockage_kernel_ might influence the effect of dilation and erosion. If this value is likely to be tuned, would it be better to externalize it into a config file? If there's no need for such tuning, then perhaps the current implementation is fine.

[kyoichi-sugahara]

If the on-going conversations with miura san were addressed for me change is ok 👍
But how the feature check shuold be done?
For example, launch logging simulator with this pr and change some parameter and so on?
If you expect something to test the PR, I really appreciate if teach me how to do it 🙇

[badai-nguyen]

Based on observing other parts of the code, it seems that the value of blockage_kernel_ might influence the effect of dilation and erosion. If this value is likely to be tuned, would it be better to externalize it into a config file? If there's no need for such tuning, then perhaps the current implementation is fine.

@badai-nguyen

https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/pull/5932/files#diff-e1ecba84e49b0d4c692b47318fc8347f109aa9ef03c5758e64c6c6d3e0e8776aR80

Based on observing other parts of the code, it seems that the value of blockage_kernel_ might influence the effect of dilation and erosion. If this value is likely to be tuned, would it be better to externalize it into a config file? If there's no need for such tuning, then perhaps the current implementation is fine.

@kyoichi-sugahara I added parameter for blockage_kernel_ at 4fc3731

[kyoichi-sugahara]

@badai-nguyen
At first, I run logging_simulator with rosbag.

Only top lidar's sky_blockage_ratio value is valid and the other's value is nan.
Is it expected?

[badai-nguyen]

@badai-nguyen At first, I run logging_simulator with rosbag.

Only top lidar's sky_blockage_ratio value is valid and the other's value is nan. Is it expected?

@kyoichi-sugahara sorry for late response, and thanks a lot for reporting it. That is a bug when lidar's horizontal line is outside of the FoV. sky_blockage_ratio should be 0.0.
I fixed Nan output bug here 44f9324

[kyoichi-sugahara]

@badai-nguyen
Thank you so much for the fix 😍
LGTM and merging this PR is ok in my opinion 👍