chore: separate traffic_light_utils from perception_utils

[miursh]

Description

I separated "traffic_light_utils" and "object_recognition_utils" from "perception_utils".
The main reason for this is to reduce dependencies for the build of "tensorrt_yolox" in the "Edge.auto" project, which relies on new "object_recognition_utils".

Tests performed

I have confirmed that whole traffic_light_recognition module and object_recognition module work correctly after this PR by logging_simulator.launch.

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.

[yukkysaito]

@miursh May I ask for some background on this PR?
I feel uncomfortable that only traffic light is separated from perception utils.

[yukkysaito]

@miursh cc @mitsudome-r
Thanks for the updated PR description.
If you want to separate them, I'd like to go from perception_utils to object_recognition_utils.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 1.88% and project coverage change: -0.83 ⚠️

Comparison is base (093f840) 15.21% compared to head (55eee99) 14.38%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4207      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   15.21%   14.38%   -0.83%     
==========================================
  Files        1489     1606     +117     
  Lines      102611   110553    +7942     
  Branches    31524    32027     +503     
==========================================
+ Hits        15613    15906     +293     
- Misses      70047    77315    +7268     
- Partials    16951    17332     +381     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	10.70% <1.88%> (?)
total	14.26% <ø> (-0.96%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 5c9ebfd

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...tils/include/object_recognition_utils/matching.hpp	60.46% <ø> (ø)
...object_recognition_utils/object_classification.hpp	60.00% <ø> (ø)
common/object_recognition_utils/src/conversion.cpp	50.00% <ø> (ø)
...ect_recognition_utils/src/predicted_path_utils.cpp	48.07% <ø> (ø)
...ect_recognition_utils/test/src/test_conversion.cpp	34.67% <ø> (ø)
...bject_recognition_utils/test/src/test_geometry.cpp	50.00% <ø> (ø)
...tion_utils/test/src/test_object_classification.cpp	16.12% <ø> (ø)
...ition_utils/test/src/test_predicted_path_utils.cpp	22.46% <ø> (ø)
...on/traffic_light_utils/src/traffic_light_utils.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ed_object_validation/src/object_lanelet_filter.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 31 more

... and 122 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[miursh]

@yukkysaito
Thank you for your comment.
Do you mean separating into 'traffic_light_utils' and 'object_recognition_utils' instead of 'perception_utils'?

[yukkysaito]

Thank you for your comment.
Do you mean separating into 'traffic_light_utils' and 'object_recognition_utils' instead of 'perception_utils'?

@miursh Yes.
If it is a common use of object_recognition and traffic_light, then perception_utils is fine.

[miursh]

@yukkysaito I have renamed the most of perception_utils to object_recognition_utils.
d7a8c57

[yukkysaito]

LGTM

[yukke42]

LGTM