@mitsudome-r -san, I guess, I found the problem. When we start to publish the empty pointcloud before the initialization, it causes the crash above. We should publish the pointcloud message after the vehicle is initialized. I tried 7 times in planning_control mode and I didn't get the error we mentioned above. When you have time, could you test it again with the latest commit?

Very nice work @brkay54
I tried this PR on my own computer and I think a few minor improvements can be made.

• Firstly, when running the planning_control mode without making any changes to the param file, including file paths, I noticed that even with invalid file paths in the param file, the node worked without giving any error or warning. You can throw an error when an invalid file path is given to make sure the user can see the results after testing.

• Secondly, in the scenario created for the planning_control mode, the vehicle starts driving and stops for an object close to the goal point, abruptly ending the test. However, since the object is far from the ego's starting point, it may not be immediately clear whether there is an object at that point until the vehicle moves forward for a while. This could lead to confusion about why the test ends at that specific point. To improve clarity, you can add a marker symbolizing the object there or start the next test a few seconds after the vehicle has stopped completely.

• When I ran the perception_planning mode (with no changes made to the param file other than the bag and output file paths), I encountered an issue where the test did not complete. Although the vehicle was initialized, the goal was set, and the route was generated with objects properly detected, the test did not proceed beyond this point. No output file was created. However, when I commented out the control topics in the yaml file and retried, the tests were completed successfully, and the result file was created. In this regard, it would be useful for users to specify the reaction topics that the mods expect separately or to add a warning about this to the readme.

Also, I did not encounter any node crashes like in the last comment. I think the README file was quite descriptive. Overall, it's a well-done piece of work!

@beyzanurkaya Thank you for the review.

Firstly, when running the planning_control mode without making any changes to the param file, including file paths, I noticed that even with invalid file paths in the param file, the node worked without giving any error or warning. You can throw an error when an invalid file path is given to make sure the user can see the results after testing.

I have added a condition for checking whether the output path is valid or not at the beginning of the node.

Secondly, in the scenario created for the planning_control mode, the vehicle starts driving and stops for an object close to the goal point, abruptly ending the test. However, since the object is far from the ego's starting point, it may not be immediately clear whether there is an object at that point until the vehicle moves forward for a while. This could lead to confusion about why the test ends at that specific point. To improve clarity, you can add a marker symbolizing the object there or start the next test a few seconds after the vehicle has stopped completely.

Thank you for the suggestion. I added a debug marker for the entity that will be spawned.

When I ran the perception_planning mode (with no changes made to the param file other than the bag and output file paths), I encountered an issue where the test did not complete. Although the vehicle was initialized, the goal was set, and the route was generated with objects properly detected, the test did not proceed beyond this point. No output file was created. However, when I commented out the control topics in the yaml file and retried, the tests were completed successfully, and the result file was created. In this regard, it would be useful for users to specify the reaction topics that the mods expect separately or to add a warning about this to the readme.

Because the vehicle is not moving in perception_planning mode, the control topics may not react. Thus the reaction_analyzer waits for them to react. I added this warning in the readme, I also added a warning message prints reaction_analyzer is waiting for which node.

I appreciate your review. Could you also try with the last commit?

running reaction analyzer but the vehicle is not initializing.. I was able to initialize the vehicle by giving a current pose and goal pose through rviz but the dynamic obstacle is still not spawning in the map. (using the default nishishinjuku map). Is this an ongoing issue or is there a work around for this ?