feat(trajectory_safety_filter): boundary departure prevention filter with diagnostics#2699
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Zulfaqar Azmi <zulfaqar.azmi@tier4.jp>
Signed-off-by: Zulfaqar Azmi <zulfaqar.azmi@tier4.jp>
Signed-off-by: Zulfaqar Azmi <zulfaqar.azmi@tier4.jp>
Signed-off-by: Zulfaqar Azmi <zulfaqar.azmi@tier4.jp>
Signed-off-by: Zulfaqar Azmi <zulfaqar.azmi@tier4.jp>
Signed-off-by: Zulfaqar Azmi <zulfaqar.azmi@tier4.jp>
zulfaqar-azmi-t4
requested review from
Kotakku,
kyoichi-sugahara,
maxime-clem and
mkquda
as code owners
tier4-autoware-public-bot
bot
added
beta/v0.48
.../include/autoware/trajectory_safety_filter/filters/uncrossable_boundary_departure_filter.hpp
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Zulfaqar Azmi <zulfaqar.azmi@tier4.jp>
| if (!plugin->is_debug_mode()) { | ||
| is_feasible = false; | ||
| } | ||
| RCLCPP_WARN(get_logger(), "Not feasible: %s", res.error().c_str()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zulfaqar-azmi-t4 Thank you, I got your idea. I guess using throttle here will be more robust? And will that affect your MOB investigation later on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am thinking of throttling, but I'm no so sure how long should i throttle.
I guess one second throttle should be fine. 🤔
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zulfaqar-azmi-t4 I think so. My expectation is at least 1 second. Since not many nodes are doing similar things now, for our experiment 1s is fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added the throttle
d4e55d1
i changed the message to error since it makes more sense.
Signed-off-by: Zulfaqar Azmi <zulfaqar.azmi@tier4.jp>
|
2 participants
Adding boundary departure filter plus diagnostics in the trajectory safety filter.
Note that the filter is in debug mode, so it will be running, but doesn't affect
autoware_trajectory_safety_filterresult.Require: https://github.com/tier4/autoware_launch.x2/pull/1934