-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Rjd 1333/previous following lanelets #43
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
HdMapUtils::getFollowingLanelets
is not readable as it is for me. You should provide a more detailed explanation of its functionality and what candidate_lanelet_ids
is and can/cannot contain
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think working with indices instead of iterators in getFollowingLanelets
would be more convenient at this point, but this is good as it is
Description
Abstract
Function
getFollowingLanelets
has confusing functionality or imprecise naming. Consider the following invocation:getFollowingLanelets(120660, {120660, <random-lanelets>}, 10000, true)
, then will be added to the returned vector unconditionally.Function
getPreviousLanelets
has a mistake. The function is supposed to process one lanelet in every iteration, but every iteration starts from the lanelet passed as the argument. The result will be the lanelet passed as the argument and many copies of the one - previous lanelet. The mistake was introduced in change tier4@3fc8c0a#diff-da44510bdbbba766d1ba47318640cfd8bcff2e350eafe3d77d364bfbf70e25cdL745-L770. The previous implementation seems to have been right.Details
Function
getFollowingLanelets
was changed to check if candidates lanelets are actually following each other.Function
getPreviousLanelets
was rewritten to match previous implementation.References
Jira ticket: internal link
Destructive Changes
There are no destructive changes.