refactor(avoidance): use common safety checker

[satoshi-ota]

Description

🤖 Generated by Copilot at 7d5d1f6

This pull request improves the safety check feature of the behavior path planner, which aims to avoid collisions with other objects by shifting lanes or decelerating. It updates the configuration file, the documentation, and the data structures for the new parameters and logic. It also refactors and simplifies the code of the avoidance module and the avoidance manager, and adds some utility functions for the safety check calculations.

Please approve ⬇️ before this PR.
autowarefoundation/autoware_launch#477

Tests performed

• PASS TIER IV INTERNAL SCENARIOS

Effects on system behavior

Nothing.

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.

[github-actions]

Documentation URL: https://autowarefoundation.github.io/autoware.universe/pr-4388/
Modified URLs:

• https://autowarefoundation.github.io/autoware.universe/pr-4388/planning/behavior_path_planner/behavior_path_planner_avoidance_design/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 11.21% and project coverage change: -0.01% ⚠️

Comparison is base (e181dce) 14.93% compared to head (e72a556) 14.93%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4388      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   14.93%   14.93%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1515     1515              
  Lines      104547   104509      -38     
  Branches    31779    31770       -9     
==========================================
- Hits        15615    15607       -8     
+ Misses      71896    71883      -13     
+ Partials    17036    17019      -17     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	13.32% <11.21%> (?)
total	14.93% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from e181dce

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

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
...lanner/scene_module/avoidance/avoidance_module.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
..._planner/utils/avoidance/avoidance_module_data.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ath_planner/src/scene_module/avoidance/manager.cpp	6.72% <0.00%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
...ehavior_path_planner/src/utils/avoidance/utils.cpp	6.56% <7.79%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
...er/src/scene_module/avoidance/avoidance_module.cpp	11.78% <28.57%> (-0.15%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

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

[kyoichi-sugahara]

LGTM
Thank you so much for using common function. It helps when i make safety check class.

[kyoichi-sugahara]

@satoshi-ota
Like always some small question happenst to me.
This is_right_shift is the flag to judge ego-vehicle is shifting and judge if safety check should be excuted based on the information i guess.
If so, only shifting to right direction is only left side running country like Japan?
So is_shifting or is_avoiding is more suitable I thought.

[satoshi-ota]

@kyoichi-sugahara Thanks for your question. 👍

This is_right_shift is the flag to judge ego-vehicle is shifting and judge if safety check should be excuted based on the information i guess.

Yes. If ego doesn't need to shift, the value will be std::nullopt.

If so, only shifting to right direction is only left side running country like Japan?

No. I think there is a possiblity to meet the situation we have to shift right side on right-side traffic country. Additionaly, we sometimes met left shift situation in Odaiba.

Therefore, I think the variable is_right_shift needs to show following three case:

1. is_right_shift: true -> RIGHT side shift
2. is_right_shift: false -> LEFT side shift
3. is_right_shift: std::nullopt: NO shift lines exist

In conclusion, I suppose that it is better to use is_right_shift. What do you think?