Skip to content

Support RoutingAction__use_lane_ids_for_routing option for routing actions #1611

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 35 commits into from
Jun 3, 2025

Conversation

HansRobo
Copy link
Member

@HansRobo HansRobo commented May 27, 2025

Description

Abstract

  • Introduce special parameter RoutingAction__use_lane_ids_for_routing to switch calling appropriate ADAPI.
  • Rename AcquirePositionAction.allow_goal_modification into RoutingAction__allow_goal_modification to show supporting it in AssignRouteAction
  • Arrange requestAssignRoute and requestAcquirePosition overloads in EgoEntity
  • Add new plan overloads and mark old one as deprecated to support dual ADAPI, in FieldOperatorApplication

Details

Changes in functions of EgoEntity and FieldOperatorApplication.

image

References

https://github.com/tier4/sim_evaluation_tools/issues/525

Destructive Changes

Old type of FieldOperatorApplication::plan is now deprecated and will be deleted in the future

Known Limitations

EgoEntity::requestReplanRoute does not support RoutingAction__use_lane_ids_for_routing for now. (But it does not break legacy behavior.)
We should consider about manual-override simulation behavior when we modify this function.
So, I did not modify it because I think it is beyond scope of this pull-request.

Copy link

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.

@HansRobo HansRobo changed the title Add RouteOption v2 Support use_lane_level_specification_for_waypoints option for routing actions May 29, 2025
@HansRobo HansRobo added the bump minor If this pull request merged, bump minor version of the scenario_simulator_v2 label May 29, 2025
@HansRobo HansRobo marked this pull request as ready for review May 29, 2025 08:29
@HansRobo HansRobo marked this pull request as draft May 29, 2025 08:29
@HansRobo HansRobo requested a review from yamacir-kit May 29, 2025 09:01
@HansRobo HansRobo marked this pull request as ready for review May 30, 2025 01:13
@HansRobo HansRobo self-assigned this May 30, 2025
@HansRobo HansRobo changed the title Support use_lane_level_specification_for_waypoints option for routing actions Support RoutingAction__use_lane_ids_for_routing option for routing actions Jun 2, 2025
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jun 2, 2025

@HansRobo HansRobo merged commit 4e1f997 into master Jun 3, 2025
16 of 19 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot deleted the feature/set_route branch June 3, 2025 04:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bump minor If this pull request merged, bump minor version of the scenario_simulator_v2
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants