Add CI/CD and implement the first two rules

[hoangtungdinh]

Description

This PR is ready for CCB's review.

This PR sets up the structure of the repository, creates CI/CD and implements the first two rules using the Python Base Library.

Main changes

1. The original implementation is moved to the original_implementation folder so that it can still be easily accessed and used as the reference implementation for the new rules. Towards the end of the project, the folder original_implementation will be removed.
   • Reorganize files for new implementation #11
2. Add CI/CD
   • Add CI tests workflow #13
3. Implement two rules: road.lane.access.no_mix_of_deny_or_allow and road.lane.level_true_one_side. Note that, the WARNING logic in the rule road.lane.level_true_one_side is not complete for now.
   • Implementation of road lane access mix of deny or allow #12
   • Fix issue count and assignment #14
   • Add road lane level true one side #15
   • Add checker status and rule uid #16
   • Add lane section level check #17
   • Update rule execution verification #18

How was the PR tested?

1. Tests are documented in each PR above.

Notes

This PR will close the following issue:

• [XODR] Implement Check for Rule 144 "road.lane.access.no_mix_of_deny_or_allow" #1

[pmai]

Implementation looks good to me.

Maybe I missed something in discussions, but I'm unsure why the original implementation is just moved into a sub-directory rather than deleting it? If we want to re-use something from it in the future, its still in the history, so why not clean up now?

[hoangtungdinh]

@pmai, the reason we keep the original implementation is that it is easier to access and use as a reference when implementing the rule, as we don't have to search the commit history or another branch to find the original implementation. However, I can see that it causes confusion. We will remove the original implementation in the next sprint.

[pmai]

@pmai, the reason we keep the original implementation is that it is easier to access and use as a reference when implementing the rule, as we don't have to search the commit history or another branch to find the original implementation. However, I can see that it causes confusion. We will remove the original implementation in the next sprint.

You can easily keep two revisions checked out out in parallel, either using a local clone, or using the git worktree add <path> feature for multi-worktrees from a single repo, which is what I would recommend for temporary reference use.

If we are going to remove it anyway I would definitely recommend doing it already in this PR (I can provde the necessary commit cleanup prior to merging), as otherwise the history is already screwed up a bit (file moves rather than file deletion, which can get confusing both for humans and in certain cases for some advanced git commands).

General opinions on this? @asam-ev/qc_ccb

[hoangtungdinh]

I agree @pmai . We will add the removal to this PR.

[hoangtungdinh]

I am closing this PR as we now have #49 carrying all the commits from this PR.