feat(tier4_autoware_api_launch): add rosbridge

[shmpwk]

Signed-off-by: Shumpei Wakabayashi shumpei.wakabayashi@tier4.jp

Description

web_controller needs rosbridge server.
Previously, autoware universe does not launch rosbridge because of #658 (comment).
So I add launching rosbridge following original tier4/autoware_launch.

Related discussion: autowarefoundation/autoware#208

Note that #318 removes rosbridge for fear of conflicting rosbridge in #175 as they mentioned.
However #175 is under tier4 repos, but not under autowarefoundation.
Under tier4 repos, rosbridge is launched in autoware_api_launch, which cause conflict if other code lanches rosbridge.
On the other hand, under autoware foundation repos, neither tier4_autoware_api_launch (same as autoware_api_launch) nor web_controller does not launch rosbridge for fear of duplication.
See #658 (comment) and #318.

Thus we can add launching rosbridge in autoware_api or web_controller under autoware foundation repos.

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.

[Sharrrrk]

@shmpwk, in this case, I would propose to launch rosbridge in web_controller.launch.xml as the rosbridge is used by web_controller, launch it in autoware_api makes it confusing.

[Sharrrrk]

What's more, as mentioned in ros2/launch#568 ,respawn fix has already been released into the launch packages in version 0.22.0.

[kosuke55]

FYI: ros2/launch#569 was released in 0.22.0 but not in galactic.

[shmpwk]

@kosuke55 @Sharrrrk
Thank you for the infomation.
Then as for rospawn, leave <arg name="respawn" value="$(var respawn)"/>.

As for in which pkg should we launch rosbridge, I asked here

[shmpwk]

@Sharrrrk
Throughout discussion here,
we decided to launch rosbridge in tier4_autoware_api_launch.
Also I added docs in web_controller about rosbridge.

@yabuta
Could you review this PR?

[Sharrrrk]

@Sharrrrk Throughout discussion here, we decided to launch rosbridge in tier4_autoware_api_launch. Also I added docs in web_controller about rosbridge.

@shmpwk Thank you for the detailed explanation, may be we should consider add it directly in autoware.launch, as it is required by multiple nodes. So implement it in either module may not a proper way.
The other reason is that web_controller is now launched by autoware.launch in core and it's somehow a compulsory part to use autoware; while for API_launch, it's still in universe and under discussion. I think in this way, it's easier for current users to understand and also doesn't block the integration of API.

[shmpwk]

@Sharrrrk
Yes, I agree with you in that it is more straightforward to launch rosbridge in autoware.launch.xml.
My concern is rosbridge is just for backend support and if it is written in autoware.launch (also in planning_simulator,launch, logging_simulator.launch), it reduces readability. A new user don't have to know what is rosbridge.
If rosbridge is written in autoware.launch, do you think rosbridge should be launched independently not in the module?

[Sharrrrk]

If rosbridge is written in autoware.launch, do you think rosbridge should be launched independently not in the module?

Yes, as far as rosbridge is a common requried component, I think it's better to be added to autoware.launch, in the tools section. Maybe with some comment like this to explain why:

<!-- This component allows webpages to talk with ROS, which is required by Web Controller and External API component-->

[shmpwk]

@Sharrrrk That seems to be a good way if rosbridge is launched with autoware_launch.
Still, I think it would be easier to use api_launch to launch rosbridge.
How about the concept that api_launch is an interface including rosbridge and web_controller is its use case?

[shmpwk]

@Sharrrrk What do you think? (It is a trivial matter though.)

[shmpwk]

@Sharrrrk
Looking at tier4 repos (not autowarefoundation repos), currently we put rosbridge in autoware_api.launch.
https://github.com/tier4/autoware_launch/blob/awf-latest/autoware_api_launch/launch/autoware_api.launch.xml

So my suggestion is

1. following it as the current PR is
2. if this PR have problem after this PR merged, make another PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #779 (ce8d2f5) into main (4e18fe0) will increase coverage by 0.40%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head ce8d2f5 differs from pull request most recent head 963f608. Consider uploading reports for the commit 963f608 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##            main    #779      +/-   ##
========================================
+ Coverage   9.23%   9.63%   +0.40%     
========================================
  Files        981     907      -74     
  Lines      61221   56544    -4677     
  Branches   11193    6694    -4499     
========================================
- Hits        5655    5450     -205     
+ Misses     50646   46599    -4047     
+ Partials    4920    4495     -425     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	∅ <ø> (?)
total	9.63% <ø> (+0.40%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 5e9ab8c

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...lision_checker_node/obstacle_collision_checker.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (-8.14%)	⬇️
...anning_evaluator/src/metrics/stability_metrics.cpp	78.57% <0.00%> (-3.58%)	⬇️
...nning/behavior_velocity_planner/test/src/utils.hpp	85.71% <0.00%> (-2.10%)	⬇️
control/trajectory_follower/src/pid.cpp	91.48% <0.00%> (ø)
perception/shape_estimation/src/node.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
perception/tensorrt_yolo/src/nodelet.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
perception/lidar_centerpoint/src/node.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
planning/obstacle_stop_planner/src/node.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
map/lanelet2_extension/lib/visualization.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
planning/route_handler/src/route_handler.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 281 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 4e18fe0...963f608. Read the comment docs.

[yukkysaito]

LGTM
pls get @kenji-miyake 's aprrove as well

[kenji-miyake]

cc @isamu-takagi