feat(behavior_path_planner): revise behavior planner to work with dynamic lanelets #6393
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
component:planning
StepTurtle
changed the title
mehmetdogru
force-pushed
the
feat/add_dynamic_lanelet_to_planning
branch
from
b06513c to
cf221be
Compare
| lanelet::LaneletMapPtr map = route_handler->getLaneletMapPtr(); | ||
| lanelet::ConstLanelets all_lanelets = lanelet::utils::query::laneletLayer(map); | ||
| lanelet::ConstLanelets route_lanelets = route_handler->getRouteLanelets(); | ||
| for (auto it = route_lanelets.rbegin(); it != route_lanelets.rend(); ++it) { | ||
| for (auto it2 = all_lanelets.rbegin(); it2 != all_lanelets.rend(); ++it2) { | ||
| if ((*it).id() == (*it2).id()) { | ||
| // std::cout << "Route lanelet id: " << (*it).id() << std::endl; | ||
| // select the lanelet goal lanelet | ||
| goal_lane = *it2; | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can keep the goal pose.
For the goal_lane, if the behavior planner doesn't work without this modification we can keep it. However, I would like to add new parameter use_differential_map_loading, and update goal lane only when this parameter is set true.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @mitsudome-r,
I added the parameter you mentioned starting from planning.launch.xml first. I used this parameter both within the planning module and when specifying the input lanelet topic. Should I also include this parameter in autoware.launch.xml? If I add it to autoware.launch.xml, I believe I can use the same parameter for both the map and planning.
github-actions
bot
added
the
component:launch
StepTurtle
requested review from
rej55,
kosuke55,
soblin,
takayuki5168,
zulfaqar-azmi-t4,
danielsanchezaran,
maxime-clem,
satoshi-ota,
shmpwk,
TakaHoribe,
tkimura4,
kyoichi-sugahara,
TomohitoAndo,
mkuri and
taikitanaka3
as code owners
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. |
StepTurtle
force-pushed
the
feat/add_dynamic_lanelet_to_planning
branch
from
9322571 to
0a630d5
Compare
xmfcx
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Barış Zeren <bzeren1819@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Barış Zeren <bzeren1819@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Barış Zeren <bzeren1819@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Barış Zeren <bzeren1819@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Barış Zeren <bzeren1819@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Barış Zeren <baris@leodrive.ai>
StepTurtle
force-pushed
the
feat/add_dynamic_lanelet_to_planning
branch
from
3e4dfba to
eee5d51
Compare
Signed-off-by: Barış Zeren <baris@leodrive.ai>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tested along with all the related PRs and the provided lanelet map and it works very well.
I think the feature should still be considered a prototype requiring more testing, and it needs to be made clear in some part of the documentation.
For example, updates of the map may incur spikes in the processing time of some planning modules.
|
@rej55 @kosuke55 @soblin @takayuki5168 @zulfaqar-azmi-t4 @danielsanchezaran @satoshi-ota @shmpwk @TakaHoribe @tkimura4 @kyoichi-sugahara @TomohitoAndo @mkuri @taikitanaka3 @go-sakayori @mkquda |
xmfcx
added
the
run:build-and-test-differential
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. |
|
@StepTurtle @maxime-clem it seems this PR became stale, even tough it was approved, is there a plan to fix the conflicts and merge? |
|
Hey @danielsanchezaran, There are other PRs which should be merged before this one. So this one is waiting the others PRs: https://github.com/orgs/autowarefoundation/discussions/4120#discussioncomment-8310365 |
|
I have made it to draft until the dependent PR is merged. |
Description
Dynamically load Lanelet2 maps required for the current driving situation, aiming to avoid time consumption and reduce computational costs in the planning pipeline, while also addressing long-term issues associated with Lanelet2 map projection.
Related links
Proposal Link
Tests performed
You can check the update comment in proposal to see current test results.
Notes for reviewers
Interface changes
Effects on system behavior
Pre-review checklist for the PR author
The PR author must check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.
In-review checklist for the PR reviewers
The PR reviewers must check the checkboxes below before approval.
Post-review checklist for the PR author
The PR author must check the checkboxes below before merging.
After all checkboxes are checked, anyone who has write access can merge the PR.