Rename modules "config" directory to "sample_config" or the config files to "sampler_*.params.yaml"?

[VRichardJP]

It seems launch parameter files now all reside in the autoware_launch/config directory, while the config/*.param.yaml files in autoware modules are nothing but examples, not meant to be modified.

If that is the case, could we rename the modules config directory or the modules config files to reflect that and avoid any confusion?

For example, there are 2 ndt_scan_matcher.param.yaml files, but the one that matters is in autoware_launch/config. We could:

• rename autoware.universe/.../config/ndt_scan_matcher.launch.xml -> autoware.universe/.../sample_config/ndt_scan_matcher.launch.xml or
• rename autoware.universe/.../config/ndt_scan_matcher.launch.xml -> autoware.universe/.../config/sample_ndt_scan_matcher.launch.xml or
• add some comments on top of autoware.universe/.../config/ndt_scan_matcher.launch.xml, like /!\ This file is for default configuration, and is overridden in autoware_launch /!\

What do you think?

[kenji-miyake]

@VRichardJP I think it might be a good idea. I'll ask other developers in TIER IV about it.

Regarding the last option, I feel it's not good because it would be confusing when we sync parameters in autoware.universe and autoware_launch like this: autowarefoundation/autoware_launch#161
I mean, the comment in the sample parameter file will also be in the actual parameter file.

Note: If we do this, we must update https://autowarefoundation.github.io/autoware-documentation/main/contributing/coding-guidelines/ros-nodes/parameters/.

[kminoda]

I agree to both @VRichardJP and @kenji-miyake, it's a good idea to specify that it is merely a default parameter.

(brainstorming)

1. autoware.universe/.../sample_config/ndt_scan_matcher.param.xml
2. autoware.universe/.../config/sample_ndt_scan_matcher.param.xml
3. autoware.universe/.../config/ndt_scan_matcher.sample.param.xml
4. autoware.universe/.../config/sample.ndt_scan_matcher.param.xml

IMHO it's better to use default rather than sample, but would like to hear other opinions, too.

[kenji-miyake]

[Memo]
nav2: params
https://github.com/ros-planning/navigation2/tree/main/nav2_bringup/params

moveit: config / default_configs
https://github.com/ros-planning/moveit2/tree/main/moveit_kinematics/cached_ik_kinematics_plugin/config
https://github.com/ros-planning/moveit2/tree/main/moveit_configs_utils/default_configs

IMHO it's better to use default rather than sample, but would like to hear other opinions, too.

If we specify the parameter file in the sample node-launch file (if it's the default), I think default is natural.

[mitsudome-r]

In my understanding, both parameter files are just samples and meant to be modified by the user.
The parameter file in a node package is a sample parameter to run the node alone, whereas the parameter in the launch file are sample to be used in a launch file which might be tuned to be aligned with other nodes.

However, it is true that there are parameter files with the same name in different places so I agree to rename one of them to avoid confusion. (I don't mind using either sample or default)

[doganulus]

There might be multiple levels to set those parameters: Node, launch, container, CLI. I think the ability to modify/override parameters at different levels is a modern practice that boosts agility.

The lowest (node) level must be understood as default values. I am not sure whether that should be specified explicitly by the filename (but could be). When levels and merge order are well-defined, the confusion would be much less though.

Hence, I am up for not giving too much importance to filenames, but standardizing individual parameter names and a well-defined overriding mechanism at launch.