feat(radar_scan_to_pointcloud2): add radar_scan_to_pointcloud2 package

[scepter914]

Description

Add radar_scan_to_pointcloud2 package.
This package follow proposed radar sensing architecture.

Related links

Tests performed

Test by rosbag.

Notes for reviewers

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.
• 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

Base: 10.47% // Head: 10.46% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (eb36841) compared to base (1940b87).
Patch coverage: 0.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2336      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   10.47%   10.46%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1248     1253       +5     
  Lines       91327    91140     -187     
  Branches    21037    20919     -118     
==========================================
- Hits         9566     9538      -28     
- Misses      71573    71611      +38     
+ Partials    10188     9991     -197     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	0.00% <0.00%> (?)
total	10.44% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from a9a55ec

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../lane_departure_checker/lane_departure_checker.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...rture_checker_node/lane_departure_checker_node.cpp	0.41% <0.00%> (ø)
...ion/crosswalk_traffic_light_estimator/src/node.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../include/traffic_light_map_based_detector/node.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...tion/traffic_light_map_based_detector/src/node.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...havior_path_planner/behavior_path_planner_node.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...or_path_planner/src/behavior_path_planner_node.cpp	0.19% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
...clude/freespace_planner/freespace_planner_node.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...r/src/freespace_planner/freespace_planner_node.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../src/goal_pose_visualizer/goal_pose_visualizer.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 158 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[drwnz]

In the linked radar sensing architecture design document, there was discussion about populating custom fields but no clear consensus. Although I understand the problem of portability when different devices have different data fields, I feel like association between two different clouds may be a large issue - for example if you want to use both doppler and amplitude information for a perception task. In which case, custom fields in a single pointcloud would appear to be cleaner and more compact than publishing multiple clouds. But since I have not directly used these fields, interested in further discussion on this. Thanks!

[scepter914]

Now I finish fixing some points for galactic CI fail.

[yukkysaito]

LGTM