adds routing graph argument to the functions that use routing graph

[HansRobo]

Abstract

This pull-request adds routing graph argument to the listed functions

Detail

HDMapUtils class

functions with routing graph type added as an argument

• canChangeLane
• getAlongLaneletPose
• getConflictingLaneIds
• getFollowingLanelets
• getLaneChangeableLaneletId
• getPreviousLanelets
• getSpeedLimit
• matchToLane
• toLaneletPose
• toLaneletPoses

functions with routing configuration added as an argument

The original argument allow_lane_change was combined with the added new routing graph type argument to create the
routing configuration argument.

struct RoutingConfiguration
{
  bool allow_lane_change = false;
  traffic_simulator::RoutingGraphType routing_graph_type =
    traffic_simulator::RoutingGraphType::VEHICLE;
};

• countLaneChanges
• getLateralDistance
• getLongitudinalDistance
• getRoute

traffic_simulator::distance namespace

The original argument allow_lane_change was combined with the added new routing graph type argument to create the
routing configuration argument.

• countLaneChanges
• lateralDistance
• longitudinalDistance
• boundingBoxLaneLateralDistance
• boundingBoxLaneLongitudinalDistance

Note

changes to these functions are breaking interface

traffic_simulator::pose namespace

The original argument allow_lane_change was combined with the added new routing graph type argument to create the
routing configuration argument.

• relativeLaneletPose
• boundingBoxRelativeLaneletPose

Note

changes to these functions are breaking interface

traffic_simulator::lanelet_pose namespace

The original argument allow_lane_change was combined with the added new routing graph type argument to create the
routing configuration argument.

• CanonicalizedLaneletPose::getAlternativeLaneletPoseBaseOnShortestRouteFrom

References

Regression Test: OK

Destructive Changes

The functions listed below are not backward compatible

• traffic_simulator::distance::countLaneChanges
• traffic_simulator::distance::lateralDistance
• traffic_simulator::distance::longitudinalDistance
• traffic_simulator::distance::boundingBoxLaneLateralDistance
• traffic_simulator::distance::boundingBoxLaneLongitudinalDistance
• traffic_simulator::pose::relativeLaneletPose
• traffic_simulator::pose::boundingBoxRelativeLaneletPose

migration guide

The penultimate argument, allow_lane_change, has been changed to routing_configuration.
This is a destructive change because I can't use default arguments except for the last one.

allow_lane_change: false

before

const auto relative = traffic_simulator::pose::relativeLaneletPose(
    from, to, false, hdmap_utils);

after

const auto relative = traffic_simulator::pose::relativeLaneletPose(
    from, to, traffic_simulator::RoutingConfiguration(), hdmap_utils);

allow_lane_change: true

before

const auto relative = traffic_simulator::pose::relativeLaneletPose(
    from, to, true, hdmap_utils);

after

traffic_simulator::RoutingConfiguration lane_changeable_routing_configuration;
lane_changeable_routing_configuration.allow_lane_change = true;
const auto relative = traffic_simulator::pose::relativeLaneletPose(
    from, to, lane_changeable_routing_configuration, hdmap_utils);

Known Limitations

None

[github-actions]

Checklist for reviewers ☑️

All references to "You" in the following text refer to the code reviewer.

• Is this pull request written in a way that is easy to read from a third-party perspective?
• Is there sufficient information (background, purpose, specification, algorithm description, list of disruptive changes, and migration guide) in the description of this pull request?
• If this pull request contains a destructive change, does this pull request contain the migration guide?
• Labels of this pull request are valid?
• All unit tests/integration tests are included in this pull request? If you think adding test cases is unnecessary, please describe why and cross out this line.
• The documentation for this pull request is enough? If you think adding documents for this pull request is unnecessary, please describe why and cross out this line.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
2 New issues
1 Accepted issue

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
62.1% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud