Resolve "Split launch file into pipelines to make them re-usable"

Description

This MR resolves #857 (closed) by creating a new package autoware_auto_launch which splits launch files into re-usable pipelines. These have been split into the following categories:

• localization
• mapping
• perception
• planning
• sensors
• simulator
• vehicle
• visualization

Some notes about implementation details:

• The mpc_controller node is launched with the the planning stack since these components are highly related.
• The map_publisher is a node that belongs to the ndt_nodes package however it more related to the mapping than localization. This could be improved in the future by moving this node into the mapping sub-directory.
• The name of the package autoware_auto_launch is also subject to change, if there are better alternatives please feel free to suggest them.

Notes for reviewer

• All launch should be able to be launched and should not output any errors
• Launching all launch files should run the AVP demo.
• sensors is a launch file which manipulates sensor data - this could be moved into perception since the only pointclouds are being filtered. The rationale for keeping filtering nodes separate from perception nodes as perception nodes also does classification and segmentation of sensor data (i.e. input = pointcloud, output = bounding box). While filtering nodes would keep the sensor data types consistent (i.e. input = pointcloud, output = pointcloud).

Pre-review checklist for the author before submitting for review

Every developer is encouraged to be familiar with our contributor guidelines.

1. MR formalities
   1. "WIP" or "Draft" removed from the MR title
   2. MR title and description help a friendly human understand the problem solved
   3. MR has a link to the original issue in the description, if it exists
   4. If the source branch is on a fork, MR is configured to allow commits from developers with access to push to the target branch
   5. Sensible notes for the reviewer added to the section above to facilitate review
   6. Target branch set correctly. Default: master
   7. MR assigned to a capable reviewer. Default: @JWhitleyWork
   8. Splitting the MR into smaller, easier-to-review merge requests was considered
2. Code and tests
   1. Code is properly formatted
   2. Tests affected by new code pass locally
   3. Reasonable coverage with unit tests of 90+%; else create a follow-up ticket
   4. Review any // TODO item added in the MR that can be addressed without the reviewer's help
3. Documentation
   1. Any new and modified code has accurate doxygen documentation
   2. Any diagrams are committed

Checklist for the reviewer

Only the reviewer is allowed to make changes in this section!

Items not applicable to this MR are crossed out by the reviewer.

• [ ] For new nodes, the checklist is expanded and reviewed
• For a new package, the checklist is expanded and reviewed
• Reviewer crossed out non-applicable items

Checklist

If the MR provides an improvement, don't hesitate to add a 👍 emoji for a neat line of code or a "Thanks for implementing this" comment. This will reward the MR author and prevent the review from being only about what still needs to be improved.

Mark all the items that are done.

Checklist for development

1. Basic checks
   1. The MR title describes what is being done on the ticket
   2. All functional code written in C++14, tooling code may be written in Python 3.5+ or Bash
   3. The first commit has a proper commit message to be used as a basis for the squashed commit created at the very end
2. Code correctness
   1. The problem/feature is solved (reproducibly)
   2. The solution is performant enough for the use case in mind
   3. Any disabled lints inside the code or at the package level are justified
3. Open work
   1. Any added source-code comment about future work refers to a follow-up GitLab issue explicitly; e.g., // TODO #551 refactor code below
4. Documentation
   1. New classes, methods, functions in headers are documented with doxygen-style comments
   2. If implementation (of a function...) is modified, the doxygen documentation is updated accordingly
   3. The design article is updated with the implementation
   4. Drawings are created when needed and committed to git
   5. Modified files have a license that is compatible with AutowareAuto
5. Testing
   1. Code coverage with unit tests does not decrease. Aim for coverage with unit tests of 90+%; else create a follow-up ticket
   2. Unit tests make sense and cover the business logic and error cases
   3. Integration tests are sensible and not flaky

Checklist for new ROS2 nodes

1. Every node is registered as a component
2. The naming conventions are followed
3. At least the basic launch integration test is included

Checklist for new package

1. Structure
   1. The package name and organization into files is sensible
   2. Core functionality is separated from the ROS2-specific part where reasonable
   3. There is a design document that explains the package at a high level
   4. All dependencies are explicitly included in package.xml with the proper <*depend> declaration

When starting from scratch, new packages should be created with the autoware_auto_create_pkg macro and they will automatically satisfy the following criteria.

1. If an existing package is added to AutowareAuto, it should match the output of autoware_auto_create_pkg regarding
   1. same set of linters
   2. visibility control
   3. finding build dependencies in cmake with ament_auto_find_build_dependencies()
   4. installing with ament_auto_package()

Post-review checklist for the author

After receiving approval:

1. Rendered documentation looks as expected
2. All checkboxes in the MR checklist are checked or crossed out. Syntax example: 1. [ ] ~~this item crossed out~~
3. Developers were informed about breaking changes on slack in the committers-autoware-auto channel
4. Assign MR to maintainer with sufficient rights to merge. Default: @JWhitleyWork