feat(pointcloud_preprocessor): runtime configurable output topic qos

[ralwing]

Description

This change would allow runtime qos configuration for filter output topic. Currently, it is not even possible to use filters with nodes which have qos configured as reliable.
According to ROS2 documentation it would be possible to configure qos at runtime:

Node(
                package="pointcloud_preprocessor",
                executable="crop_box_filter_node",
                name="crop_box_filter",
                parameters=[
                    {"input_frame": "base_link"},
                    {"output_frame": "base_link"},
                    {"qos_overrides.output.reliability": "reliable"},
                ],
            ),

The output topic must be in fact fully qualified topic name, and cannot be changed after the node is constructed, however this feature is still extending filter nodes usability.

Tests performed

Feature: I've tested crop-box-filter with different qos settings.

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.

[kminoda]

@ralwing Could you elaborate more on the background of this PR, e.g. what issue you want to solve?

[ralwing]

@kminoda
In this pull request, I'd like to fix missing node ability to work with different qos subscriber configurations. Currently, when a subscriber has a reliable qos reliability configured, it can't retrieve data from this node.
And primarly, IMHO QoS settings should be easily configurable without the need to change source code.

[knzo25]

@ralwing
Sorry for taking so long in checking this PR
I talked to the relevant people at TierIV and there were no opinions against this scheme (in fact, we will introduce to several of our packages outside universe).
However, for this particular PR, could you apply the same idea to all the relevant pub/subs in the package? I don't think it is a good idea to implement this only half way

[ralwing]

@knzo25
I've added it to publishers in pointcloud_processor.

[knzo25]

@ralwing
Thanks for the changes. Doing a Ctrl+F search, I think I saw concatenate_and_time_sync and ring_outlier_filter with PointCloud2 publishers without the runtime configurable options (not the main pointcloud but still releveant)

[knzo25]

@ralwing
It is been around a month since the last activity in this PR.
If you do not think you will be able to continue working on this PR, please let us know so that we can try to arrange resources to continue working on this ourselves, or close the PR.

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to the Autoware project!

🚧 If your pull request is in progress, switch it to draft mode.

Please ensure:

• You've checked our contribution guidelines.
• Your PR follows our pull request guidelines.
• All required CI checks pass before marking the PR ready for review.

[ralwing]

I've added missing policies configuration in pointcloud preprocessor and additionally in livox_tag_filter and radar_scan_to_pointcloud2, which concludes these changes in sensing subfolder.

[knzo25]

LGTM

Thank you for your contribution !

[knzo25]

@scepter914 @technolojin @YoshiRi
It seems we need an approval from one of you guys !

[YoshiRi]

@knzo25 Thanks for your support!
LGTM

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 17.85714% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.54%. Comparing base (335ed8b) to head (cbde5fa).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...atenate_data/concatenate_and_time_sync_nodelet.cpp	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...are_livox_tag_filter/src/livox_tag_filter_node.cpp	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...lier_filter/dual_return_outlier_filter_nodelet.cpp	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...ointcloud2_node/radar_scan_to_pointcloud2_node.cpp	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...r/src/concatenate_data/concatenate_pointclouds.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...or/src/crop_box_filter/crop_box_filter_nodelet.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...src/outlier_filter/ring_outlier_filter_nodelet.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...rc/time_synchronizer/time_synchronizer_nodelet.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
.../vector_map_filter/lanelet2_map_filter_nodelet.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6658      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   28.37%   28.54%   +0.16%     
==========================================
  Files        1583     1588       +5     
  Lines      115588   115852     +264     
  Branches    49278    49351      +73     
==========================================
+ Hits        32798    33066     +268     
+ Misses      73819    73773      -46     
- Partials     8971     9013      +42     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	9.64% <17.85%> (?)
total	28.37% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 335ed8b

*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.

[ralwing]

@knzo25 The clang-tidy reports hundreds of warnings, which are unrelated with this PR.

[knzo25]

@ralwing
Yes, but they are not required as of now. Can you Squash and merge ?

[ralwing]

Nope:

[knzo25]

Ok, I was waiting for you to merge this. I will do it instead