fix(behavior_path_planner): fix utility function

[tkimura4]

Signed-off-by: tomoya.kimura tomoya.kimura@tier4.jp

Related Issue(required)

Description(required)

Fix the utility function in behavior_path_planner.

The timestamp of a last point in a predicted_path should be base timestamp + timstep * (path.size() -1)
But, in the current code, a last point in predicted_path is base timestamp + timstep * (path.size() )

Because of this bug, the following errors are output frequently in a lane change situation.

This PR fixed it.

Review Procedure(required)

comment out the followingapproval topic in behavior_planning.launch.py

            ExecuteProcess(
                cmd=[
                    "ros2",
                    "topic",
                    "pub",
                    "/planning/scenario_planning/lane_driving/behavior_planning/"
                    "behavior_path_planner/path_change_approval",
                    "tier4_planning_msgs/msg/Approval",
                    "{approval: true}",
                    "-r",
                    "10",
                ]
            ),

(1)Run the planning simulator, and set a goal which requires lane-change.
(2)Put the virtual dynamic object on the path of ego-vehicle

(3)Confirm that the following errors are not output by merging this PR

Related PR(optional)

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

PR Author should check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.

• Read commit-guidelines
• Assign PR to reviewer

If you are adding new package following items are required:

• Documentation with description of the package is available
• A sample launch file and parameter file are available if the package contains executable nodes

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

Reviewers should check the checkboxes below before approval.

• Commits are properly organized and messages are according to the guideline
• PR title describes the changes

Post-Review Checklist for the PR Author

PR Author should check the checkboxes below before merging.

• All open points are addressed and tracked via issues or tickets

CI Checks

• Build and test for PR / build-and-test-pr: Required to pass before the merge.
• Build and test for PR / clang-tidy-pr: NOT required to pass before the merge. It is up to the reviewer(s). Found false positives? See the [guidelines][clang-tidy-guidelines].
• Check spelling: NOT required to pass before the merge. It is up to the reviewer(s). See here if you want to add some words to the spell check dictionary.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #434 (0f28aab) into tier4/proposal (9ce55c7) will decrease coverage by 10.20%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@                Coverage Diff                 @@
##           tier4/proposal    #434       +/-   ##
==================================================
- Coverage           10.20%   0.00%   -10.21%     
==================================================
  Files                 705      34      -671     
  Lines               49427    4846    -44581     
  Branches             6413       0     -6413     
==================================================
- Hits                 5043       0     -5043     
+ Misses              40213    4846    -35367     
+ Partials             4171       0     -4171     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
planning/behavior_path_planner/src/utilities.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...l_based_approximate_compare_map_filter_nodelet.cpp
...lter/occupancy_grid_map_outlier_filter_nodelet.hpp
...city_planner/src/scene_module/blind_spot/scene.cpp
...c/scene_module/intersection/scene_intersection.cpp
...ity_planner/src/scene_module/intersection/util.cpp
...module/no_stopping_area/scene_no_stopping_area.cpp
...ene_module/occlusion_spot/occlusion_spot_utils.cpp
...sion_spot/scene_occlusion_spot_in_private_road.cpp
...usion_spot/scene_occlusion_spot_in_public_road.cpp
... and 662 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5839f6b...0f28aab. Read the comment docs.

[TakaHoribe]

Confirmed the reported issue has been solved.

A little node: the size() -1 was a bit concern for me, but I found an empty size case is handled just above appropriately. So no problem.