test(planning_validator): add interface test

[kyoichi-sugahara]

Description

Objective:

There have been frequent issues where planning nodes stop functioning when they receive special routes (will referr as "exceptional routes"). In this PR, created and implemented tests to ensure that nodes do not stop when they receive exceptional routes as input.

Method:

1. For each node, publish the necessary topics for the node to function from test_node_.
2. Verify that the node does not stop functioning.
3. Confirm that the final output topic of the node can be subscribed to by test_node_.

These verification points are categorized into the following two groups:

1. Confirm that the necessary topics are output from test_node_ and the node is functioning properly.

• Use simple routes or routes necessary for the node to function properly as inputs to verify normal operation.

2. After confirming the above operation, output exceptional routes (empty routes, single point routes, routes with duplicate points, etc.) from test_node_ and ensure that the node does not stop functioning.

• When using exceptional routes as input, there is no need to publish the final output. It is sufficient to confirm that the node does not stop functioning.

Related links

Tests performed

Tests performed

please run the following command and verify that it produces the expected output:

colcon test --event-handlers console_cohesion+ --packages-select planning_validator

If the following output is returned, then the changes in this pull request have passed all tests:

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 5

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.

• 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 follows the pull request guidelines.
• The PR has been properly tested.
• 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 16.66% and project coverage change: +0.02 🎉

Comparison is base (494ae1c) 12.23% compared to head (79d106c) 12.25%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3406      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   12.23%   12.25%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1380     1381       +1     
  Lines       96845    96737     -108     
  Branches    27990    27913      -77     
==========================================
+ Hits        11845    11857      +12     
+ Misses      72443    72304     -139     
- Partials    12557    12576      +19     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	46.42% <16.66%> (?)
total	12.24% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 9933a32

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...or_path_planner/src/behavior_path_planner_node.cpp	0.12% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
...or/src/crop_box_filter/crop_box_filter_nodelet.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
.../pointcloud_preprocessor/src/utility/utilities.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...est/src/test_planning_validator_node_interface.cpp	16.66% <16.66%> (ø)

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[TakaHoribe]

Memo: the build failed in old version

[TakaHoribe]

worked well