RJD-1057: Reorganize ostream operators

[f0reachARR]

Description

Abstract

This is a partial pull request of #1334.

Background

std::ostream & operator<< are defined in helper.[ch]pp. However, this filename is not intuitive.
Also, output of these operators are ambiguous.

Details

Quoted from #1334.

Ostream helpers
All existing operators std::ostream & operator<< have been moved from file helper.[ch]pp to a dedicated file ostream_helper.[ch]pp.
In addition many more operators have been added for the types

• traffic_simulator_msgs::msg::LaneletPose
• traffic_simulator_msgs::msg::EntitySubtype
• traffic_simulator_msgs::msg::Axle
• traffic_simulator_msgs::msg::Axles
• traffic_simulator_msgs::msg::BoundingBox
• traffic_simulator_msgs::msg::Performance
• traffic_simulator_msgs::msg::VehicleParameters

In addition, this PR will update test related to changes.

References

#1334

Destructive Changes

Output from operators are changed. We may need to fix programs that use output.

[github-actions]

Checklist for reviewers ☑️

All references to "You" in the following text refer to the code reviewer.

• Is this pull request written in a way that is easy to read from a third-party perspective?
• Is there sufficient information (background, purpose, specification, algorithm description, list of disruptive changes, and migration guide) in the description of this pull request?
• If this pull request contains a destructive change, does this pull request contain the migration guide?
• Labels of this pull request are valid?
• All unit tests/integration tests are included in this pull request? If you think adding test cases is unnecessary, please describe why and cross out this line.
• The documentation for this pull request is enough? If you think adding documents for this pull request is unnecessary, please describe why and cross out this line.

[github-actions]

Failure optional scenarios

Note

This is an experimental check and does not block merging the pull-request.
But, please be aware that this may indicate a regression.

scenario failed: execution_time_test

      <failure type="SimulationFailure" message="CustomCommandAction typed &quot;exitFailure&quot; was triggered by the named Conditions {&quot;update time checker&quot;, &quot;avoid startup&quot;}: {&quot;update time checker&quot;: Is the /simulation/interpreter/execution_time/update (= 0.005730999999999999983124610026) is greaterThan 0.005?}, {&quot;avoid startup&quot;: Is the simulation time (= 2.799999999999997601918266809662) is greaterThan 1.000000000000000000000000000000?}" />

[HansRobo]

I'll do the regression test and review. After that, I'll approve this.
(There is nothing that needs to be changed at this time. This is just for block merging before test.)

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
11 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
7.2% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud