perf(map_based_prediction): apply lerp instead of spline

[ktro2828]

Description

Use interpotion::lerp instead of interpolation::spline in PathGenerator::generatePathForonLaneVehicle.
This PR improved worst case execution time of MapBasedPrediction::objectsCallback from 36.86[ms] to 28.47[ms] on my device.

• Before

⏰ Worst Case Execution Time ⏰
objectsCallback: total 36.86 [ms], avg. 36.86 [ms], run count: 1
    ├── trafficSignalsCallback: total 0.01 [ms], avg. 0.01 [ms], run count: 1
    ├── removeStaleTrafficLightInfo: total 0.00 [ms], avg. 0.00 [ms], run count: 1
    ├── updateObjectData: total 0.00 [ms], avg. 0.00 [ms], run count: 1
    ├── getCurrentLanelets: total 0.28 [ms], avg. 0.28 [ms], run count: 1
    │   

• After

⏰ Worst Case Execution Time ⏰
objectsCallback: total 28.47 [ms], avg. 28.47 [ms], run count: 1
    ├── trafficSignalsCallback: total 0.01 [ms], avg. 0.01 [ms], run count: 1
    ├── removeStaleTrafficLightInfo: total 0.00 [ms], avg. 0.00 [ms], run count: 1
    ├── updateObjectData: total 0.00 [ms], avg. 0.00 [ms], run count: 1
    ├── getCurrentLanelets: total 0.18 [ms], avg. 0.18 [ms], run count: 1
    │  

CPU time (during the node is active) comparison of PathGenerator::generatePathForonLaneVehicle is as follows:

Before: 1.792[s] -> After: 0.520[s]

Related links

Parent Issue:

• Link

How was this PR tested?

I checked predicted paths with this data. TIER IV INTERNAL LINK

TODO

• Currently, it seems some objects output weired path in the latest main branch, but by reverting 147403f I confirmed these paths disappeared including this PR.
• Testing whether there is degradation on planning modules.

Notes for reviewers

None.

Interface changes

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.

[technolojin]

I think this change also makes performance improvement!

I made similar change and is under testing.

I think it is better to check if there is degradation on planning.

[ktro2828]

TODO
[ ] Testing whether there is degradation on planning modules.

I'm testing an influence of this PR on planning modules. TIER IV INTERNAL LINK

[ktro2828]

TODO
[ ] Testing whether there is degradation on planning modules.

I'm testing an influence of this PR on planning modules. TIER IV INTERNAL LINK

@YoshiRi @kyoichi-sugahara @technolojin
The test passed and looks there is no degradation on planning modules.
Could you review this PR? I've experimented this PR following as TIER IV INTERNAL LINK.

[technolojin]

LGTM

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 23.72%. Comparing base (dcd56fe) to head (bef5997).
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...toware_map_based_prediction/src/path_generator.cpp	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8416      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   23.73%   23.72%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1379     1381       +2     
  Lines      101392   101406      +14     
  Branches    38534    38539       +5     
==========================================
- Hits        24063    24059       -4     
- Misses      74937    74955      +18     
  Partials     2392     2392              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	2.14% <0.00%> (?)
total	23.73% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 4037867

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[YoshiRi]

LGTM