Rename Odometry Class to SteeringKinematics

[kumar-sanjeeev]

This PR includes the following changes:

• Renamed the Odometry class to SteeringKinematics to better represent its support for both FK and IK.
• Added deprecation warnings in the old steering_odometry.hpp header file to maintain backward compatibility.
• Kept the steering_odometry.cpp for backward compatibility and redirected actual implementation to steering_odometry.cpp
• Updated comments in the header file to reflect the new class name.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 81.17647% with 48 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.13%. Comparing base (d71538a) to head (348e34e).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ng_controllers_library/src/steering_kinematics.cpp	83.42%	28 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ring_controllers_library/src/steering_odometry.cpp	0.00%	19 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1996      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.32%   85.13%   -0.20%     
==========================================
  Files         143      144       +1     
  Lines       13936    13968      +32     
  Branches     1201     1201              
==========================================
  Hits        11891    11891              
- Misses       1638     1670      +32     
  Partials      407      407              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	85.13% <81.17%> (-0.20%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...g_controller/src/ackermann_steering_controller.cpp	81.57% <100.00%> (ø)
...ing_controller/src/bicycle_steering_controller.cpp	76.92% <100.00%> (ø)
...eering_controllers_library/steering_kinematics.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...llers_library/src/steering_controllers_library.cpp	68.40% <100.00%> (ø)
...library/test/test_steering_controllers_library.hpp	97.43% <100.00%> (ø)
...ontrollers_library/test/test_steering_odometry.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ng_controller/src/tricycle_steering_controller.cpp	81.25% <100.00%> (ø)
...ring_controllers_library/src/steering_odometry.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (-83.43%)	⬇️
...ng_controllers_library/src/steering_kinematics.cpp	83.42% <83.42%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[kumar-sanjeeev]

Hi @christophfroehlich,

I am unable to figure out why the Rolling-ABI CI/CD check is failing, however it builds fine locally. Also, I have updated the header files in all locations where steering_odometry.hpp was used to suppress the deprecation warnings.

[christophfroehlich]

Hi @christophfroehlich,

I am unable to figure out why the Rolling-ABI CI/CD check is failing, however it builds fine locally. Also, I have updated the header files in all locations where steering_odometry.hpp was used to suppress the deprecation warnings.

You are changing the ABI with your PR, so this test is supposed to fail. See the test report. Instead of using type aliases, you could leave the old methods but just call the new one from inside. This should leave ABI untouched.
The current state is fine for rolling, but if we backport this ABI break here is subject for discussion.

[kumar-sanjeeev]

Hi @christophfroehlich,
I am unable to figure out why the Rolling-ABI CI/CD check is failing, however it builds fine locally. Also, I have updated the header files in all locations where steering_odometry.hpp was used to suppress the deprecation warnings.

You are changing the ABI with your PR, so this test is supposed to fail. See the test report. Instead of using type aliases, you could leave the old methods but just call the new one from inside. This should leave ABI untouched. The current state is fine for rolling, but if we backport this ABI break here is subject for discussion.

I understand the concern, and I also liked your idea to prevent the ABI check from failing. Regarding your suggestion Instead of using type aliases, you could leave the old methods but just call the new one from inside, should I start working on this, or wait for further discussion?

[christophfroehlich]

Please do so. I now that it is a bit of a tedious work, but then we can easily backport it to kilted.

[kumar-sanjeeev]

Please do so. I now that it is a bit of a tedious work, but then we can easily backport it to kilted.

understood, i will do this.

[kumar-sanjeeev]

Please do so. I now that it is a bit of a tedious work, but then we can easily backport it to kilted.

Hi @christophfroehlich ,

Is there a recommended way to run the GitHub Actions workflow locally for testing?

[christophfroehlich]

you can use act to run them locally, a brief description is here.

[kumar-sanjeeev]

you can use act to run them locally, a brief description is here.

thanks for letting me know. The ABI check is still failing with the new push. I’m digging into logs to find a reason and will update with fix. I’ll let you know once everything is ready from myside.

[christophfroehlich]

LGTM, and ABI checker is also fine with it!

[saikishor]

The code looks fine. Didn't pay too much attention to the logic. I'll trust @christophfroehlich 😉