Simulation issueshttps://code.asam.net/groups/simulation/-/issues2024-03-21T14:26:59Zhttps://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/665Follow-up from "merge editorial_changes into master"2024-03-21T14:26:59ZBenjamin ENGEL (ASAM)benjamin.engel@asam.netFollow-up from "merge editorial_changes into master"The following discussion from !450 should be addressed:
- [x] @pmai started a [discussion](https://code.asam.net/simulation/standard/openscenario-2.0/-/merge_requests/450#note_37653): (+2 comments)
> The use of a compound noun see...The following discussion from !450 should be addressed:
- [x] @pmai started a [discussion](https://code.asam.net/simulation/standard/openscenario-2.0/-/merge_requests/450#note_37653): (+2 comments)
> The use of a compound noun seems very German... ;)
>
> ```suggestion:-0+0
> For reasons of compositionality, a definition of when a scenario accepts the following elements is required:
> ```Pierre MAI (PMSF IT Consulting)Pierre MAI (PMSF IT Consulting)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/790Make it explciit for users that probably a full automatic conversion of OSC1-...2024-03-21T14:25:33ZMax BAUER (Robert Bosch GmbH)Make it explciit for users that probably a full automatic conversion of OSC1->2 is impossibleI was surprised as I heard the statement that probably an automatic conversion of OSC1 to OSC2 is not possible at all (or we are at least not aware of a such solution, just solution which can do it partly).
According to Gil Amid this is...I was surprised as I heard the statement that probably an automatic conversion of OSC1 to OSC2 is not possible at all (or we are at least not aware of a such solution, just solution which can do it partly).
According to Gil Amid this is common knowledge, however most users/ developers within the project and outside the project seem to have a different perception here. Due to this unclear communication many people have build scenario databases in OSC1 under the assumption that it can be converted at some point.
So I propose to make this very important statement more present so people know what they can expect. This should be done at several places:
**Change 1:**
Add in the standard in the [overview section](https://www.asam.net/static_downloads/public/asam-openscenario/2.0.0/introduction.html#_overview) the following statement:
"Migration rules from the OpenSCENARIO1.x are discussed in section ... These show how such scenarios can be expressed in OSC2. However currently the project members are not aware of a suitable automatic conversion solution."
**Change 2:**
In the project description in the [migration section](https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/openscenario/v200/) change the following misleading sentence:
"See the roadmap for what we plan to do to improve this. ASAM OpenSCENARIO V2.0.0 does not yet include a normative ruleset enabling direct or automated conversion from ASAM OpenSCENARIO 1.x scenarios. ASAM aims to include this in future releases."
to:
"We are currently working to detail out more migration rule, but we are currently not aware of a solution which allows automatic conversion of OpenSCENARIO1 to OpenSCENARIO2."
**Change 3:**
In the [Further Development of ASAM OpenSCENARIO section](https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/openscenario/) the following sentence should be extended like this:
"Both versions shall merge into one in the future, however an automatic conversion of OpenSCENARIO1.x to OpenSCENARIO2.x is not guaranteed."Gil AMID (Foretellix Ltd)Gil AMID (Foretellix Ltd)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/792(Ben) to update OSC text on website and in supplementary notes after the summ...2024-03-21T14:25:15ZBenjamin ENGEL (ASAM)benjamin.engel@asam.net(Ben) to update OSC text on website and in supplementary notes after the summer TSChttps://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/793(Flo & Ben) to align with PLs and determine suitable slots for continuing the...2024-03-21T14:24:50ZBenjamin ENGEL (ASAM)benjamin.engel@asam.net(Flo & Ben) to align with PLs and determine suitable slots for continuing the discussion on the overall direction of OSChttps://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/522Internal Review Issue: 6.3.5. Events (fourth)2024-03-21T14:06:12ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.deInternal Review Issue: 6.3.5. Events (fourth)This is an open point from the Internal Review Discussions. An issue is created for the phase between release candidate and release. For overview the discussion is copied as discussion under the issue.
Copied from: https://code.asam.net/...This is an open point from the Internal Review Discussions. An issue is created for the phase between release candidate and release. For overview the discussion is copied as discussion under the issue.
Copied from: https://code.asam.net/simulation/standard/openscenario-2.0/-/issues/445#note_27693>2.1Pierre MAI (PMSF IT Consulting)Pierre MAI (PMSF IT Consulting)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/519Internal Review Issue: 6.2.5. Events (first)2024-03-21T14:05:14ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.deInternal Review Issue: 6.2.5. Events (first)This is an open point from the Internal Review Discussions. An issue is created for the phase between release candidate and release. For overview the discussion is copied as discussion under the issue.
Copied from: https://code.asam.net/...This is an open point from the Internal Review Discussions. An issue is created for the phase between release candidate and release. For overview the discussion is copied as discussion under the issue.
Copied from: https://code.asam.net/simulation/standard/openscenario-2.0/-/issues/445#note_27691>2.1Pierre MAI (PMSF IT Consulting)Pierre MAI (PMSF IT Consulting)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/503Public Review Issue: Separate scenario and test parts?2024-03-21T14:01:32ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.dePublic Review Issue: Separate scenario and test parts?Issue from filestage Public Review:
Marked Part in **Scenario Creation Guidlines**.
### 10.18.1. Workflow short description
![image](/uploads/1acfcb19b3317198ec4bcab9012cff5f/image.png)
**Comment: NCAP contains szenario and test parts...Issue from filestage Public Review:
Marked Part in **Scenario Creation Guidlines**.
### 10.18.1. Workflow short description
![image](/uploads/1acfcb19b3317198ec4bcab9012cff5f/image.png)
**Comment: NCAP contains szenario and test parts. Both should be separated - szenarios should not contain evaluation criteria.
Accordingly, it is not possible to convert test descriptions to szenarios only but to szenario and evaluation criteria that needs to be part of a test case definition.**
### 10.22.4. Steps for specifying test aspects
![image](/uploads/81875ac928c064c408292d80e2c4cf50/image.png)
**Comment: Szenarios and test case definitions should always be seperated. A seperation of szenario from evaluation criteria related content, enables reuse of szenarios for different DUT.**
@rosenberg i think this is your document. Could you take a look at it and provide an answer.
I will copy it to filestage than.
Thanks>2.1https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/531Internal Review Issue: 0. General Topic Examples2024-03-21T13:59:29ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.deInternal Review Issue: 0. General Topic ExamplesThis is an open point from the Internal Review Discussions. An issue is created for the phase between release candidate and release. For overview the discussion is copied as discussion under the issue.
Copied from: https://code.asam.net/...This is an open point from the Internal Review Discussions. An issue is created for the phase between release candidate and release. For overview the discussion is copied as discussion under the issue.
Copied from: https://code.asam.net/simulation/standard/openscenario-2.0/-/issues/445#note_28021>2.1Matthias BuekerMatthias Buekerhttps://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/919Annex A - Formatting looks wrong2024-03-21T13:56:09ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.deAnnex A - Formatting looks wrong### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC4](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC4)
### Description:
The left section is to big and the content section to small
![image.png](/uploads/f3f1...### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC4](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC4)
### Description:
The left section is to big and the content section to small
![image.png](/uploads/f3f1606e47ddb8ac3f7d4ad3380f433b/image.png)
### Suggestion:
Change it, like in all other sections.
Maybe the reason is, the second header is super long:
> A.2. UN Regulation No 157 "Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to Automated Lane Keeping Systems">2.1https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/706Space gap is incorrect defined?2024-03-21T13:49:26ZMax BAUER (Robert Bosch GmbH)Space gap is incorrect defined?The space gap is defined as follows:
https://www.asam.net/static_downloads/public/asam-openscenario/2.0.0/domain-model/entity.html#_method_space_gap
```
extend traffic_participant:
def space_gap(reference: physical_object, direction:...The space gap is defined as follows:
https://www.asam.net/static_downloads/public/asam-openscenario/2.0.0/domain-model/entity.html#_method_space_gap
```
extend traffic_participant:
def space_gap(reference: physical_object, direction: distance_direction) -> length
```
```
distance_direction:
longitudinal
The relative s-coordinate.
Positive means that the traffic participant is ahead of the reference.
```
We assume that the naming `reference` and `traffic participant` was here swapped accidentally.
This would be the current output if we interpret it as is:
```
# facing -->
# ego_vehicle <-----------------distance----------------> other (= reference)
ego_vehicle.space_gap(other, longitudinal) -> negative distance # But one expects a positive space gap here!
```
While intuitively (and the way we need it for scenarios) one would expect that a positive distance means that there is a positive space_gap if the `other` vehicle is ahead, this is not the case.
This is also different than [the method object_distance](https://www.asam.net/static_downloads/public/asam-openscenario/2.0.0/domain-model/entity.html#_method_object_distance)
**Suggestion:**
Make an example with less ambigous naming such as `this_vehicle` and `other_vehicle`.
The same goes for the lateral definition>2.1Nicolas OCHOA LLERAS (DENSO Automotive)Nicolas OCHOA LLERAS (DENSO Automotive)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/685Wrong indentation in code example2024-03-21T13:41:01ZPavel SHUMEJKO (Siemens)Wrong indentation in code exampleMistake in the indentation in code example [6.1.1.2.1 Language characteristics: Code 5. An ASAM OpenSCENARIO scenario](https://www.asam.net/static_downloads/public/asam-openscenario/2.0.0/conceptual-overview/writing_a_scenario.html#_lang...Mistake in the indentation in code example [6.1.1.2.1 Language characteristics: Code 5. An ASAM OpenSCENARIO scenario](https://www.asam.net/static_downloads/public/asam-openscenario/2.0.0/conceptual-overview/writing_a_scenario.html#_language_characteristics), phase2 should be tabbed in (parallel to phase1).
![example](/uploads/91a7823c3c7eedeea002c0a6d70cc122/example.PNG)
should be corrected to:
```
scenario vehicle.two_phases:
do serial (duration : [10s..30s]):
phase1: actor.drive() with:
speed(speed: 0kph, at: start)
speed(speed: 10kph, at: end)
phase2: actor.drive() with:
speed(speed: [10kph..15kph])
```>2.1Pierre MAI (PMSF IT Consulting)Pierre MAI (PMSF IT Consulting)2023-05-31https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/795LRM review findings2024-03-21T13:28:08ZAndreas MUETSCH (DXC Luxoft)LRM review findings<!--- The below content is appended to any helpdesk issue automatically -->
Issues found during review of LRM for grammar check workpackage.
See findings as separate comment threads.<!--- The below content is appended to any helpdesk issue automatically -->
Issues found during review of LRM for grammar check workpackage.
See findings as separate comment threads.>2.1https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/936Update Introduction and Landingpage according to ASM-22 | Deliverables section2024-03-21T13:25:41ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.deUpdate Introduction and Landingpage according to ASM-22 | Deliverables section\< Add the section you are commenting on and a subject to the issue title \>
### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
We have no d...\< Add the section you are commenting on and a subject to the issue title \>
### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
We have no deliverables section in the foreword, but this is the right place (ASM-22).
Our deliverables are described on the Landingpage:
![image.png](/uploads/3ea4238773f0f5a92c2cad51c968befe/image.png)
### Suggestion:
1. **Add ne section to Introduction Deliverables** and add an overview of the deliverables, for more information see:
1. https://internal.pages.asam.net/asam-editorial-guide/editorial-guide-generator/editorialguide-asciidoc/1.0.0/Editorial_guide/02_structure.html#sec-ASM-22
2. https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASAM_OpenDRIVE/ASAM_OpenDRIVE_Specification/latest/specification/00_preface/00_introduction.html#sec-bbc4fe63-ed72-4092-8ae4-f1733fcff502
Do not add `(contained in the deliverables menu of this site)` the links are enough.
2. Rephrase the landing page:
Something like: `In addition to this dicument, ASAM OpenSCENARIO provides the deliverables listed in the section deliverables.`
Copy the "rest" to the Introduction in the ASM-22 style.DSL 2.1.0 - ASAM Office finalizationAndreas MUETSCH (DXC Luxoft)Andreas MUETSCH (DXC Luxoft)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/485Public Review Issue: Difference between "space_gap()" & "object_dictance"2024-03-20T07:55:19ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.dePublic Review Issue: Difference between "space_gap()" & "object_dictance"Issue from filestage Public Review:
Marked Part in **Domain Model Specification**.
### 2.1.4. Interface traffic_participant
![image](/uploads/dbe9f3b1b26673afa5665e41203b4ca3/image.png)
**Where's the difference to object_distance meth...Issue from filestage Public Review:
Marked Part in **Domain Model Specification**.
### 2.1.4. Interface traffic_participant
![image](/uploads/dbe9f3b1b26673afa5665e41203b4ca3/image.png)
**Where's the difference to object_distance method? Only the additional offset parameter and the limitation to BB distance?**
@n.ochoa i think this is your document. Could you take a look at it and provide an answer.
I will copy it to filestage than.
ThanksMS19: Collected FeedbackNicolas OCHOA LLERAS (DENSO Automotive)Nicolas OCHOA LLERAS (DENSO Automotive)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/1.x/-/issues/655Update Introduction according to ASM-22 | Deliverables section2024-03-18T10:17:19ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.deUpdate Introduction according to ASM-22 | Deliverables section### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v1.3.0-RC4](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/1.x/-/tree/v1.3.0-RC4)
### Description:
Inconsistent naming and order of Deliverables in the Introduction and in the download menu...### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v1.3.0-RC4](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/1.x/-/tree/v1.3.0-RC4)
### Description:
Inconsistent naming and order of Deliverables in the Introduction and in the download menu.
![image.png](/uploads/c2a88e27da1606eda00b965789cea67a/image.png)
![image.png](/uploads/25325a351f94cdd4796a481721c6037e/image.png)
### Suggestion:
1. Update the deliverables section according to ASM-22 (Order & Naming)
1. https://internal.pages.asam.net/asam-editorial-guide/editorial-guide-generator/editorialguide-asciidoc/1.0.0/Editorial_guide/02_structure.html#sec-ASM-22
2. https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASAM_OpenDRIVE/ASAM_OpenDRIVE_Specification/latest/specification/00_preface/00_introduction.html#sec-bbc4fe63-ed72-4092-8ae4-f1733fcff502
Do not add `(contained in the deliverables menu of this site)` the links are enough.XML 1.3.0 - ASAM Office finalizationAndreas MUETSCH (DXC Luxoft)Andreas MUETSCH (DXC Luxoft)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/1.x/-/issues/656Consolidated ASAM Office Editorial findings2024-03-11T16:39:48ZFlorian WALLERER (AVENYR GmbH)florian.wallerer@avenyr.deConsolidated ASAM Office Editorial findings### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v1.3.0-RC4](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/1.x/-/tree/v1.3.0-RC4)
### Description:
A lot of editorial findings came up during the ASAM Office finalization on pastel.
https:...### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v1.3.0-RC4](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/1.x/-/tree/v1.3.0-RC4)
### Description:
A lot of editorial findings came up during the ASAM Office finalization on pastel.
https://usepastel.com/link/o9dq22k4/
### Suggestion:
Provide merge request to fix all editorial findings which do not change any content.XML 1.3.0 - ASAM Office finalizationYash SHAH (ASAM)Yash SHAH (ASAM)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/930Wrong type and description in traffic_light_phase structure2024-02-22T08:47:17ZChristoph JANSSEN (Bosch)Wrong type and description in traffic_light_phase structure### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
In Table 345. Struct [traffic_light_phase](https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASA...### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
In Table 345. Struct [traffic_light_phase](https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO_DSL/latest/domain-model/traffic_lights.html#sec-traffic_lights-class-traffic_light_phase) bulbs_state have the wrong type/description. See also [Example 5](https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO_DSL/latest/domain-model/traffic_lights.html#_example_5)
**bulbs_state**
- Type: _list of traffic_light_bulb_
- Description: _List of all bulbs in the group_
### Suggestion:
**bulbs_state**
- Type: _list of bulb_state_
- Description: _List of all bulb states in the phase_
< The following content contains the necessary issue properties for filtering. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE TEXT BELOW! >DSL 2.1 Public ReviewRobert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)Robert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/932Traffic_light_phase is supposed to set semantic_state according to descriptio...2024-02-22T08:47:16ZRobert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)Traffic_light_phase is supposed to set semantic_state according to description, but sets bulb_states instead### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
Traffic light phase description says:
```null
The semantic state in combination with its ...### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
Traffic light phase description says:
```null
The semantic state in combination with its duration. It specifies how long the semantic state is active.
```
But it accepts a `list of light_bulb` instead of the semantic state. `light_bulb` does not have a semantic state, but `list of light_bulb` can be converted to a semantic state using `state_to_semantic_state` .
### Suggestion:
Maybe this, but I'm open for better suggestions:
```null
Definition of the states of a list of light bulbs of a specific traffic light group for a defined time span.
```DSL 2.1 Public ReviewRobert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)Robert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/926Inconsistent traffic light bulb icons enums2024-02-22T08:47:16ZMax BAUER (Robert Bosch GmbH)Inconsistent traffic light bulb icons enums### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO_DSL/lates...### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO_DSL/latest/domain-model/traffic_lights.html#sec-traffic_lights-enum-bulb_icon
Within enum bulb_icon, some "switch_*" values contain a single upper case character
- switch_T
- switch_A
- switch_bar_V
- switch_bar_V_flipped
- switch_bar_V_right
- switch_bar_V_left
and some a single lower case character
- switch_x
- switch_v_flipped
- switch_v_left
- switch_v_right
As this is confusing, inconsistent, error prone and differs from all other enum values in the standard, we suggest to change all characters to lower case.
8.14 Traffic lights :: ASAM OpenSCENARIO
### Suggestion:
Use consistent enums. with lower case.
< The following content contains the necessary issue properties for filtering. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE TEXT BELOW! >DSL 2.1 Public ReviewRobert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)Robert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/issues/927Circular dependency in traffic lights2024-02-22T08:47:16ZMax BAUER (Robert Bosch GmbH)Circular dependency in traffic lights
### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO_DSL/late...
### Document version of this comment
Branch: [v2.1.0-RC5](https://code.asam.net/simulation/openscenario/2.x/-/tree/v2.1.0-RC5)
### Description:
https://publications.pages.asam.net/standards/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO/ASAM_OpenSCENARIO_DSL/latest/domain-model/traffic_lights.html#sec-traffic_lights-class-traffic_light_phase
Possible circular dependency within traffic lights:
- TrafficLightPhase has mandatory TrafficLightGroup member
- TrafficLightGroup has mandatory TrafficLightCycle member
- TrafficLightCycle has mandatory TrafficLightPhase member (as a list)
Therefore a TrafficLightPhase can not be created without an already created TrafficLightPhase
### Suggestion:
No cyclic dependencies
< The following content contains the necessary issue properties for filtering. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE TEXT BELOW! >DSL 2.1 Public ReviewRobert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)Robert SCHOLZ (Foretellix Ltd)