Check if the tolerance circle is feasible when validating goals for path planning.

[armgits]

---

Basic Info

Info	Please fill out this column
Ticket(s) this addresses	#5566
Primary OS tested on	Ubuntu
Robotic platform tested on	Turtlebot 3 Loopback Simulation
Does this PR contain AI generated software?	No
Was this PR description generated by AI software?	No

---

Description of contribution in a few bullet points

• Added a new function to check if the tolerance circle for goals in lethal zones are actually feasible to pick another valid goal within that region.
• Also corrected description for a function getCoords in Node2D class.

Description of documentation updates required from your changes

--

Description of how this change was tested

• Unit tests pass (Also slightly updated the unit test to test the new function)
• Path planning works normally in the simulation

---

Future work that may be required in bullet points

--

For Maintainers:

• Check that any new parameters added are updated in docs.nav2.org
• Check that any significant change is added to the migration guide
• Check that any new features OR changes to existing behaviors are reflected in the tuning guide
• Check that any new functions have Doxygen added
• Check that any new features have test coverage
• Check that any new plugins is added to the plugins page
• If BT Node, Additionally: add to BT's XML index of nodes for groot, BT package's readme table, and BT library lists
• Should this be backported to current distributions? If so, tag with backport-*.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...planner/include/nav2_smac_planner/goal_manager.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...smac_planner/include/nav2_smac_planner/node_2d.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[armgits]

I think making isZoneValid a member function of Node than GoalManager as of right now might make more sense, it could be used for some other use cases too.

[SteveMacenski]

Thanks for adjusting the implementation, I had a score of things I was going to say but this implementation is much better and removes the redundant checks.

I think making isZoneValid a member function of Node than GoalManager as of right now might make more sense, it could be used for some other use cases too.

Such as?

[armgits]

Such as?

I don't have any specific cases right now, but I find this function as a more wider/approximate version of isNodeValid so in any case where validating the node's region works vs. precisely the position/node itself. Or it could be done when that need actually comes 😄

[SteveMacenski]

I think we should leave it in the goal manager for now, but keep an eye on that in the future in case that turns out to be useful as well! I think it creates a bit of complexity to have a Node itself creating and calling other Nodes to collision check in a region. That seems ... odd. Definitely something we could do, but we have other places in the goal manager already we call isNodeValid so I think this fits there perfectly fine and doesn't make first-time developers brains hurt with thinking about different instances of the same object class ... within the implementation details of a particular node class. Sometimes we make choices that are for the casual developer's benefit :-)

[armgits]

Yea I agree with that as well, we'll keep it this way and I'll iron out the rest.

[SteveMacenski]

Otherwise LGTM - anything else we should consider before merging?

[armgits]

anything else we should consider before merging?

It looks good to me too, we can merge after the CI passes.