feat(tier4_simulator_launch): add option to disable all perception related modules

[brkay54]

Description

Part of:

• Add a new tool to measure end-to-end delay of the Autoware for sudden obstacles #6547

Required for:

• feat(reaction_analyzer): add reaction anaylzer tool to measure end-to-end delay in sudden obstacle braking response #5954

Reaction_analyzer runs with PSim and it publishes its perception outputs to be able to measure exact reaction times.

What we want to do is we can be able to disable the perception publishers.

This change does not have any effect on system behavior because its default value is true.

Tests performed

Tested in PSim. Works as we expected.

Effects on system behavior

• launch_simulator_perception_modules is true -> it does not have any effect on the system.
• launch_simulator_perception_modules is false -> it does not launch perception-related modules.

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.

[yukkysaito]

Thanks. The change itself is good, but I don't know if the original PR approach is appropriate.
#5954 (review)
cc @xmfcx

[xmfcx]

@brkay54 could you rebase and resolve the conflicts?

[brkay54]

@xmfcx I solved the conflicts, however, currently, I am implementing message_filters to reaction_analyzer. So I couldn't try it yet, not tested. I am converting it to a draft. I will open it again asap.

[xmfcx]

The way it is right now,

This change does not have any effect on system behavior because its default value is true.

this is not true because some parameters are removed with this pr.

[brkay54]

The way it is right now,

This change does not have any effect on system behavior because its default value is true.

this is not true because some parameters are removed with this pr.

@xmfcx Sorry, for the missed lines. I updated it now. Tested in PSim with:
<arg name="launch_simulator_perception_modules" default="true"/>
I couldn't see any effect on system behavior. However, when it is false, behavior_path_planner waits for perception messages and the vehicle does not move. (It is what we expect.)

[brkay54]

@xmfcx I tried with both options. When it is true as the default option, there is no effect on system behavior. When it is false, it does not launch perception-related modules except probabilistic_occupancy_grid_map (which is needed for behavior_path_planner, behavior_velocity_planner, and obstacle_velocity_limiter) and reaction_analyzer can publish the Obstacles without problem.

[xmfcx]

Why is occupancy_grid_map not part of this new perception condition?

<include file="$(find-pkg-share tier4_perception_launch)/launch/occupancy_grid_map/probabilistic_occupancy_grid_map.launch.xml">

It is in the tier4_perception_launch file.

[xmfcx]

Alright, with the last change, this change puts:

• fault_injection
• dummy_perception_publisher
• probabilistic_occupancy_grid_map
• tracking
• prediction
• empty_objects_publisher
• elevation_map_loader
• traffic_light

into a group controlled by "launch_simulator_perception_modules" bool.
It is true by default.

[xmfcx]

It doesn't change the existing behavior, should be ok to merge.

[xmfcx]

@KeisukeShima
@taikitanaka3
@TakaHoribe
@takayuki5168
@tkimura4

Could you review as code owners? Should be ok to merge, simple change.

[xmfcx]

@KeisukeShima
@taikitanaka3
@TakaHoribe
@takayuki5168
@tkimura4

Please use this view while reviewing:

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/pull/6382/files?diff=split&w=1

[xmfcx]

This is a very simple change, just adds 3 lines and changes no existing behaviors, can we merge it?

Once a better solution is found, it can easily be reverted.

@takayuki5168 -san