refactor(perception_utils): add test in object_classification

[YoshiRi]

Description

add test function for object_classification.hpp in common/perception_util.

Here is test coverage.

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.

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.

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

[takayuki5168]

@YoshiRi Thanks for your PR.
The title of the PR should be refactor(package_name): , and the package name is perception_utils.

[takayuki5168]

How about adding a test to see what will happen if the object classification includes car-like vehicle and not car-like vehicle with the same probability.
This will be the edge case for isCarLikeVehicle function.

[YoshiRi]

That makes sense. I'll do it.

[YoshiRi]

This edge case depends following function getHighestProbLabel, which extract highest-scored label from classification.

• This function do not considering multiple highest probability
• It returns an earlier label with maximum probability. (It depends labels order!)
• For example, if an objects has CAR and MOTORCYCLE label with the same probability,
  • isCarLikeVehicle return true when CAR label is added first
  • else it returns false

inline std::uint8_t getHighestProbLabel(
  const std::vector<ObjectClassification> & object_classifications)
{
  std::uint8_t label = ObjectClassification::UNKNOWN;
  float highest_prob = 0.0;
  // TODO(Satoshi Tanaka): It might be simple if you use STL or range-v3.
  for (const auto & object_classification : object_classifications) {
    if (highest_prob < object_classification.probability) {
      highest_prob = object_classification.probability;
      label = object_classification.label;
    }
  }
  return label;
}

[takayuki5168]

Got it. Even if the current implementation is not good, in order to show how it works with the edge case in the current implementation, adding this edge-case test seems useful.
What do you think?

[YoshiRi]

Frankly, I think it is a rare situation that the label probabilities become the same since it is float value.
But adding edge case seems to be not harmful and it is easy to implement, I added some edge cases to this PR.

Thanks for your help.

[takayuki5168]

pre-commit failed. Don't you know how to fix it on a github browser or locally with a command?

[YoshiRi]

It seems to be due to unnecessary line break in the code.
I fixed it in local and push later.

[takayuki5168]

I meant there is an auto-fix command in both github browser and local command.

[YoshiRi]

Sorry, I forgot pre-commit run -a command before git push.
(But I still had to fix some error manually)

[takayuki5168]

Got it.

pre-commit install which enables running pre-commit every time we run git commit is also useful.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 10.75% // Head: 10.37% // Decreases project coverage by -0.38% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (f4689cb) compared to base (ea27b08).
Patch coverage: 20.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2083      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   10.75%   10.37%   -0.39%     
==========================================
  Files        1184     1171      -13     
  Lines       84694    84223     -471     
  Branches    19833    19652     -181     
==========================================
- Hits         9110     8738     -372     
+ Misses      65958    65916      -42     
+ Partials     9626     9569      -57     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	5.71% <20.00%> (?)
total	10.39% <ø> (-0.34%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 62e8f55

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...tion_utils/test/src/test_object_classification.cpp	20.00% <20.00%> (+3.87%)	⬆️
...lude/freespace_planning_algorithms/reeds_shepp.hpp	50.00% <0.00%> (-50.00%)	⬇️
.../freespace_planning_algorithms/src/reeds_shepp.cpp	55.51% <0.00%> (-38.97%)	⬇️
...eespace_planning_algorithms/abstract_algorithm.hpp	44.44% <0.00%> (-25.56%)	⬇️
...lude/behavior_path_planner/turn_signal_decider.hpp	25.00% <0.00%> (-25.00%)	⬇️
...ehicle/raw_vehicle_cmd_converter/src/accel_map.cpp	19.23% <0.00%> (-21.51%)	⬇️
...hicle/raw_vehicle_cmd_converter/src/csv_loader.cpp	53.84% <0.00%> (-16.37%)	⬇️
...ehicle/raw_vehicle_cmd_converter/src/brake_map.cpp	17.85% <0.00%> (-15.48%)	⬇️
...ace_planning_algorithms/src/abstract_algorithm.cpp	78.16% <0.00%> (-5.54%)	⬇️
...utoware_utils/src/geometry/boost_polygon_utils.cpp	77.77% <0.00%> (-2.47%)	⬇️
... and 98 more

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[takayuki5168]

@YoshiRi Could you resolve the conflict. Then this PR is ready to merge, right?

[takayuki5168]

LGTM

[yukke42]

@YoshiRi Have you forgotten to merge?