Support message type autoware_internal_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId

[yamacir-kit]

Description

Abstract

Support message type autoware_internal_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId.

Background

From Pilot.Auto 0.41.0, autoware_internal_planning_msgs has been added. Due to the addition of this message type, tier4_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId will be replaced by autoware_internal_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId from Pilot.Auto 0.41.1 onwards. In other words, Pilot.Auto 0.41.0 is a version to give time for the message type change, and while tier4_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId and autoware_internal_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId coexist, tier4_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId is the one that is used.

To accommodate this change, scenario_simulator_v2 needs to support both message types and be able to switch which one to use. This pull request does this.

Details

The current default architecture_type is awf/unvierse/20240605 and this pull request does not change it. (We need to consider how to manage the default architecture_type in the future.)

• If architecture_type is awf/universe/20250130 or later, autoware_internal_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId subscribers are instantiated.
• Otherwise, tier4_planning_msgs::msg::PathWithLaneId subscribers are instantiated.

To achieve the above switch, the class template Subscriber has been updated, and some auxiliary class templates have been added for it.

References

None.

Destructive Changes

None.

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.

[mitsudome-r]

NOTE: This PR is waiting for Autoware's release on 0.41.0

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
9 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
44.1% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud