fix(vehicle_cmd_gate): fix publisher HZ in the unit test by introducing variable window length

[xmfcx]

Description

Continuation from:

• fix(vehicle_cmd_gate): fix publisher HZ in the unit test #6661

Attempts to fix:

• vehicle_cmd_gate has flaky test #6612

@takayuki5168 -san, I've implemented this variable window length calculation to smooth out the control values.

autoware.universe/control/vehicle_cmd_gate/test/src/test_filter_in_vehicle_cmd_gate_node.cpp

Lines 84 to 86 in 9f31957

	checkFilter(2);
	checkFilter(3);
	checkFilter(4);

checkFilter(2) should work same as the original implementation.

But higher values will will average over 3 or more values for buffering spiky test results.

Tests performed

Local machine

colcon test --event-handlers console_cohesion+ --packages-select vehicle_cmd_gate passes successfully with or without this PR.

CI runners

Test with checkFilter(2) ❌, 👌

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/8381358377/job/22952704965?pr=6665#step:8:441

Ok, with checkFilter(2), it has failed the same way as expected.

1: last_x:        2 
1: /__w/autoware.universe/autoware.universe/control/vehicle_cmd_gate/test/src/test_filter_in_vehicle_cmd_gate_node.cpp:304: Failure
1: Expected: (std::abs(avg_lon_jerk)) < (max_lon_jerk_lim * threshold_scale), actual: 1.59257 vs 1.54

Now removing the checkFilter(2).

Test with checkFilter(3) and checkFilter(4) ✅

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/8381601303/job/22953511628?pr=6665#step:8:1537

It worked for the both tests 😄

Now will remove the redundant print line.

autoware.universe/control/vehicle_cmd_gate/test/src/test_filter_in_vehicle_cmd_gate_node.cpp

Line 301 in 3e2f33b

PRINT_VALUES(last_x);

Effects on system behavior

Not applicable.

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 69.44444% with 11 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 14.79%. Comparing base (872cbdd) to head (21f5296).
Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
.../test/src/test_filter_in_vehicle_cmd_gate_node.cpp	69.44%	0 Missing and 11 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6665      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   14.78%   14.79%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1925     1925              
  Lines      132734   132750      +16     
  Branches    39529    39531       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        19625    19641      +16     
+ Misses      91137    91136       -1     
- Partials    21972    21973       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	42.11% <69.44%> (?)
total	14.77% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 233f352

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[xmfcx]

@takayuki5168 -san I think this is ready for review.

I've updated the TODO comments to help future developers to adjust the test to the fixed vehicle_cmd_gate filter.

I will now sleep, hopefully the CI passes now 💤

[xmfcx]

https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/8382024394/job/22954909850?pr=6665#step:8:441

Ok 3 also failed but 4 has passed. 4 would correspond to 30ms window. I think it should be ok.

[xmfcx]

@takayuki5168 is it ok to merge this?

[takayuki5168]

Sorry to be late. LGTM!