feat(behavior_path_planner): use module status idle before approval and keep candiate running module when approved module succeed

[kosuke55]

Description

when the approved module turns SUCCESS, clear candidate_modules.
ex) avoidance module is once approved as left_avoid(at this time avoidance module is still in candidate_modules), but if other approved module turn SUCCESS, cancel the left_avoid

For this problem, in this PR,
use

• IDLE before approval
• RUNNING after approval
  • keeping the status if approved once.
    And, even if the approved module turns SUCCESS keep the RUNNING candidate modules.

Related links

tier4 internal slack

Tests performed

psim

kepp_running_candidate-2023-06-09_20.30.10.mp4

tier4 internal sceneario test

• old archi https://evaluation.tier4.jp/evaluation/reports/fbd639d3-080a-5f66-8701-559bb1b770f2?project_id=prd_jt 1332
• nwe archi https://evaluation.tier4.jp/evaluation/reports/fd64fc50-e100-5081-bcb3-f437378c7f97?project_id=prd_jt 1367

base_line 1331/1372(2023/06/19)

Notes for reviewers

please check LC+avoidance

Interface changes

not applicable

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.
• 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

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.02 ⚠️

Comparison is base (0beee33) 14.41% compared to head (5d2c048) 14.40%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3928      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   14.41%   14.40%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1456     1456              
  Lines      102763   102893     +130     
  Branches    29782    29873      +91     
==========================================
+ Hits        14812    14817       +5     
- Misses      71768    71891     +123     
- Partials    16183    16185       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	12.76% <0.00%> (?)
total	14.41% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 4560ce5

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../include/behavior_path_planner/planner_manager.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...th_planner/scene_module/scene_module_interface.hpp	29.74% <ø> (ø)
...er/src/scene_module/avoidance/avoidance_module.cpp	4.14% <ø> (ø)
...ule/dynamic_avoidance/dynamic_avoidance_module.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...planner/src/scene_module/lane_change/interface.cpp	12.75% <0.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
...cene_module/start_planner/start_planner_module.cpp	6.10% <0.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️

... and 3 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.

[rej55]

It seems the change is okay.
If the internal test is passed, you can merge this PR.

[kosuke55]

tier4 internal sceneario test paased!

old archi https://evaluation.tier4.jp/evaluation/reports/fbd639d3-080a-5f66-8701-559bb1b770f2?project_id=prd_jt 1332
nwe archi https://evaluation.tier4.jp/evaluation/reports/fd64fc50-e100-5081-bcb3-f437378c7f97?project_id=prd_jt 1367
base_line 1331/1372(2023/06/19)