feat(autoware_internal_planning_msgs): adaption to autoware_motion_utils

[NorahXiong]

Description

Adaption for porting autoware_motion_utils from autoware.universe to autoware.core:

1. add msg required by autoware_motion_utils
2. fix PathPoint type error cause by duplicate definition in repo autoware_msgs and autoware_internal_msgs (error source)

How was this PR tested?

Notes for reviewers

None.

Effects on system behavior

None.

[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.

[mitsudome-r]

@NorahXiong
Hi, could you split these two items into separate PRs? We should merge the second item right away, but I would like to wait a little for the first item.

1. add msg required by autoware_motion_utils
2. fix PathPoint type error cause by duplicate definition in repo autoware_msgs and autoware_internal_msgs (error source)

I am asking TIER IV's planning team to extract out the functions from the autoware_motion_utils package that uses the messages that you are trying to add in this PR because they are not necessary for Autoware Core. If it goes well, we might not need those messages to be added in this repo. Therefore, we can wait for the planning team's effort before merging the first feature.

However, I would like to merge the fix for PathPoint regardless of the planning team's effort because that would impact other packages that we are planning to port to Autoware Core. Therefore, we can split the PR and merge that first.

[mitsudome-r]

I'm also a bit concerned about deleting the message(PathPoint.msg) that was added in 1.4.0. (Sorry, I should have also been careful when I reviewed #45 in the first place)

We don't have any modules that's using the message yet, and we also haven't pushed 1.4.0 to the release repo either so I think deleting it would have no issue to anyone. However, 1.4.0 and the next version will no longer be compatible if we merge this PR.

@youtalk If we have to merge this, should we release the next version as 2.0 in this case?

[youtalk]

Fortunately I didn't release 1.4.0 via bloom yet. So we can still continue to use 1.X.X.
https://github.com/ros2-gbp/autoware_internal_msgs-release

[NorahXiong]

@NorahXiong Hi, could you split these two items into separate PRs? We should merge the second item right away, but I would like to wait a little for the first item.

1. add msg required by autoware_motion_utils
2. fix PathPoint type error cause by duplicate definition in repo autoware_msgs and autoware_internal_msgs (error source)

I am asking TIER IV's planning team to extract out the functions from the autoware_motion_utils package that uses the messages that you are trying to add in this PR because they are not necessary for Autoware Core. If it goes well, we might not need those messages to be added in this repo. Therefore, we can wait for the planning team's effort before merging the first feature.

However, I would like to merge the fix for PathPoint regardless of the planning team's effort because that would impact other packages that we are planning to port to Autoware Core. Therefore, we can split the PR and merge that first.

@mitsudome-r @youtalk Done. The second change has been moved to #46.

[youtalk]

LGTM

[NorahXiong]

@NorahXiong Hi, could you split these two items into separate PRs? We should merge the second item right away, but I would like to wait a little for the first item.

1. add msg required by autoware_motion_utils
2. fix PathPoint type error cause by duplicate definition in repo autoware_msgs and autoware_internal_msgs (error source)

I am asking TIER IV's planning team to extract out the functions from the autoware_motion_utils package that uses the messages that you are trying to add in this PR because they are not necessary for Autoware Core. If it goes well, we might not need those messages to be added in this repo. Therefore, we can wait for the planning team's effort before merging the first feature.

However, I would like to merge the fix for PathPoint regardless of the planning team's effort because that would impact other packages that we are planning to port to Autoware Core. Therefore, we can split the PR and merge that first.

Hi, @mitsudome-r and @youtalk, I noticed the PR is merged. Will TIER IV's team continue working on extracting the functions using these messages? If so, I will wait until the work is finished. Otherwise, I will try to update core #171 right now.

[youtalk]

Ah, I might have merged it prematurely. I wasn’t keeping up with the discussion above.
@mitsudome-r We need to revert this?

I'm sorry, this is about autoware_motion_utils porting. This PR seems fine.