RJD-1457/traffic_sink_refactor

[robomic]

Abstract

This PR contains the continuation of #1443

Details

1. There is no longer lanelet::Id passed into TrafficSink, but an optional<lanelet::Id>. It is still used solely for the purpose of visualization, where nullopt means that the sink was placed too far from the lane. Resigning from passing lanelet::Id altogether turned out to be problematic, because ends of multiple lanelets overlap and the corresponding lanelet could not be determined.
2. Additionally I would like to propose an alternative approach to the set sinkable_entity_types variable.
3. I have removed the special case if sinkable_entity_types is empty, then all entities should sink. In my opinion it could be misleading (someone could pass empty sinkable_entity_types and expect that no sinking behavior will occur). Now if we want to sink all entities, we need to provide the full set sinkable_entity_types.
4. I have removed the bool auto_sink variable, which could be equivalent to sinkable_entity_types.empty() with this approach.
5. The default behavior is sinkable_entity_types = {}, that is no auto sinks are generated.

References

Regressions OK

[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.

[hakuturu583]

LGTM

[hakuturu583]

Since this PR is a continuation of #1443, I am currently checking with the reviewer of the original PR, @yamacir-kit, to see if a review by him is needed.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
8 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
73.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud