feat(metrics_calculation): add kinematic and localization evaluators with metrics

[djargot]

Description

This PR extends planning evaluator with other evaluators and various metrics calculation.

• Create frameworks for different types of metrics:
• Extract overlapping code to generic evaluator that other evaluators can inherit from
• Add example metrics
• Add all tests
• Add README

Related links

autowarefoundation/autoware-projects#11

Tests performed

Notes for reviewers

Work in progress.

Pre-review checklist for the PR author

• 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.
• The PR has been properly tested.
• The PR has been reviewed by the code owners.

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.
• The PR is ready for merge.

After all checkboxes are checked, anyone who has write access can merge the PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #928 (4a9d682) into main (8433c13) will increase coverage by 0.17%.
The diff coverage is 47.86%.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##            main    #928      +/-   ##
========================================
+ Coverage   9.66%   9.83%   +0.17%     
========================================
  Files       1099    1113      +14     
  Lines      77299   77650     +351     
  Branches   17789   17972     +183     
========================================
+ Hits        7468    7636     +168     
- Misses     62551   62585      +34     
- Partials    7280    7429     +149     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	47.86% <47.86%> (?)
total	9.64% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 53cf1ba

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...aluator/include/kinematic_evaluator/parameters.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ator/include/localization_evaluator/parameters.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...tor/kinematic_evaluator/src/metrics_calculator.cpp	37.50% <37.50%> (ø)
...nematic_evaluator/src/kinematic_evaluator_node.cpp	40.54% <40.54%> (ø)
.../localization_evaluator/src/metrics_calculator.cpp	42.85% <42.85%> (ø)
...c_evaluator/test/test_kinematic_evaluator_node.cpp	43.10% <43.10%> (ø)
...tion_evaluator/src/localization_evaluator_node.cpp	48.52% <48.52%> (ø)
...valuator/test/test_localization_evaluator_node.cpp	48.61% <48.61%> (ø)
..._evaluator/include/localization_evaluator/stat.hpp	56.25% <56.25%> (ø)
...tor/include/kinematic_evaluator/metrics/metric.hpp	60.00% <60.00%> (ø)
... and 4 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 8433c13...4a9d682. Read the comment docs.

[WJaworskiRobotec]

Looks good for now. Some refactor will be needed after adding more evaluators

[taikitanaka3]

@WJaworskiRobotec @djargot
Could you please add one of tier4 members as reviewer when you add a huge commit?
@mitsudome-r @yukkysaito @TakaHoribe

[mitsudome-r]

@taikitanaka3
This is not a pull request to modify TIER IV author's code, and I don't see the reason why there needs a review from TIER IV. Please be aware that TIER IV is not an owner of Autoware.Universe. The PR was there for over a month until it was merged, and if you have any concerns, you should've assigned yourself as a reviewer to the PR.

[WJaworskiRobotec]

@taikitanaka3 this commit is about adding entirely new component according to the task from the Simulation WG - not used by Autoware stack by default, only for simulation based testing. We will create further PRs for perception-related evaluators, @mitsudome-r should we add someone else as reviewers (@djargot is working on the task so I can review it if it's not a problem)?

[taikitanaka3]

@WJaworskiRobotec
Thank you for contribution.
My suggestion is to add architects as a reviewer to discuss with code base.
but not always requirement.

[WJaworskiRobotec]

@taikitanaka3 sure, we might discuss the structure a bit later - we had plan to also merge existing evaluators into one package. Then we might need discussion with the architects where to put our proposal of evaluators.