refactor(detected_object_validation): rework parameters

[batuhanbeytekin]

Description

Implement the ROS Node configuration layout described in https://github.com/orgs/autowarefoundation/discussions/3371

Tests performed

Package built and launch locally.

Effects on system behavior

More reliable and faster parameter configuration file creation.

Pre-review checklist for the PR author

The PR author must check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.

• I've confirmed the contribution guidelines.
• The PR follows the pull request guidelines.

In-review checklist for the PR reviewers

The PR reviewers must check the checkboxes below before approval.

• The PR has been properly tested.
• The PR follows the pull request guidelines.
• The PR has been reviewed by the code owners.

Post-review checklist for the PR author

The PR author must check the checkboxes below before merging.

• There are no open discussions or they are tracked via tickets.
• The PR is ready for merge.

After all checkboxes are checked, anyone who has write access can merge the PR.

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to the Autoware project!

🚧 If your pull request is in progress, switch it to draft mode.

Please ensure:

• You've checked our contribution guidelines.
• Your PR follows our pull request guidelines.
• All required CI checks pass before marking the PR ready for review.

[github-actions]

Documentation URL: https://autowarefoundation.github.io/autoware.universe/pr-7750/
Modified URLs:

• https://autowarefoundation.github.io/autoware.universe/pr-7750/perception/autoware_detected_object_validation/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 52.17391% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.00%. Comparing base (fc283c5) to head (e661cf8).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...t_validation/src/lanelet_filter/lanelet_filter.cpp	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
...ccupancy_grid_map/occupancy_grid_map_validator.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...tacle_pointcloud/obstacle_pointcloud_validator.cpp	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7750      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   28.00%   28.00%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1317     1317              
  Lines       98578    98585       +7     
  Branches    39776    39779       +3     
==========================================
  Hits        27605    27605              
- Misses      70874    70881       +7     
  Partials       99       99              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	6.35% <52.17%> (?)
total	27.99% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from fc283c5

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[mitsudome-r]

@batuhanbeytekin It seems like there is a conflict with main branch. Could you resolve the conflicts?

[batuhanbeytekin]

@batuhanbeytekin It seems like there is a conflict with main branch. Could you resolve the conflicts?

Hi @mitsudome-r, my branch is up to date. I think the conflict has been resolved now. Thank you for your reply.

[mitsudome-r]

Are there any reasons for changing the argument name? Is it to match the name with parameter file name?
Since these arguments could be used by other launch files, it might be better to keep it the same for now. We could fix them when we refactor launch files after parameter work is done. (The same goes for other launch argument names)

[Shin-kyoto]

@batuhanbeytekin
Please resolve conflicts.

[MasatoSaeki]

@batuhanbeytekin
If you want to capture progress of main branch, you can use update branch button. It is easy to do that and. (It looked like you made mistakes when rebase)
And you do not need to assign reviewer who is not related. It only confuses related people.