add despawn_function argument

[hakuturu583]

Description

Abstract

Add const std::function<void(const std::string &)> & despawn_function argument to the TrafficSink/TrafficController class.

Background

Fixed #1464 to call EntityManager::despawnEntity function instead of API::despawn function during PR review process.
The API::despawn function included a function to communicate with sensor_simulator, and the function to delete Entity in sensor simulator via inter-process communication was implemented.
The EntityManager::despawnEntity function has been changed to call the EntityManager::despawnEntity function, so Entity in sensor simulator is no longer deleted.

Details

Add const std::function<void(const std::string &)> & despawn_function argument to the TrafficSink/TrafficController class and pass API::despawn function in member initialize list of the API class.

class API
{
public:
  template <typename NodeT, typename AllocatorT = std::allocator<void>, typename... Ts>
  explicit API(NodeT && node, const Configuration & configuration, Ts &&... xs)
  : traffic_controller_ptr_(std::make_shared<traffic::TrafficController>(
      [this](const std::string & name) { despawn(name); }, entity_manager_ptr_,
      configuration.auto_sink_entity_types))

References

#1464
https://star4.slack.com/archives/C04TZBEABDM/p1735261646158039?thread_ts=1735102371.414719&cid=C04TZBEABDM

Destructive Changes

N/A

Known Limitations

The design of this PR is not desirable, but for now it is a PR to solve the problems that have occurred.
In the future, use the Job class to replace the TrafficSink/TrafficSource class for a more reasonable refactor.

[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
1 New issue
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
59.1% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud