fix(traffic_simulator): set flag valid lanelet pose

[satoshi-ota]

Description

I found a bug in ego respawn logic. The ego orientation is not set correctly and respawns with wrong pose.

movie-2024-09-18_08.59.17.mp4

Abstract

I analyzed bug and fixed it in this PR.

Background

I found this line was called even when I set map pose as ego's respawn pose. But I thought it was unexpected result because the new pose was substituted to status.pose in this case.

scenario_simulator_v2/simulation/traffic_simulator/src/data_type/entity_status.cpp

Line 76 in 8d189b1

canonicalized_lanelet_pose = pose::canonicalize(status.lanelet_pose, hdmap_utils_ptr);

Details

I think we have to set flag status.lanelet_pose_valid to false when we use map pose.

diff --git a/simulation/traffic_simulator/src/api/api.cpp b/simulation/traffic_simulator/src/api/api.cpp
index d02bbfc7c..5018b3d76 100644
--- a/simulation/traffic_simulator/src/api/api.cpp
+++ b/simulation/traffic_simulator/src/api/api.cpp
@@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ auto API::setEntityStatus(
     EntityStatus status = static_cast<EntityStatus>(entity->getCanonicalizedStatus());
     status.pose = map_pose;
     status.action_status = action_status;
+    status.lanelet_pose_valid = false;
     setEntityStatus(name, status);
   } else {
     THROW_SIMULATION_ERROR("Cannot set entity \"", name, "\" status - such entity does not exist.");

After that ego respawns with correct pose.

movie-2024-09-18_09.25.24.mp4

References

https://github.com/tier4/sim_evaluation_tools/issues/343

Destructive Changes

N/A

Known Limitations

N/A

[github-actions]

Checklist for reviewers ☑️

All references to "You" in the following text refer to the code reviewer.

• Is this pull request written in a way that is easy to read from a third-party perspective?
• Is there sufficient information (background, purpose, specification, algorithm description, list of disruptive changes, and migration guide) in the description of this pull request?
• If this pull request contains a destructive change, does this pull request contain the migration guide?
• Labels of this pull request are valid?
• All unit tests/integration tests are included in this pull request? If you think adding test cases is unnecessary, please describe why and cross out this line.
• The documentation for this pull request is enough? If you think adding documents for this pull request is unnecessary, please describe why and cross out this line.