Revision datasets.kitti_dataset.KittiDataset

[lijm1358]

What does this PR do?

Related to #839

• Update docstring for KittiDataset
• Remove void_labels in argument and set it related to valid_labels
• Add test for KittiDataset with random image

Before submitting

• Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue? (no need for typos and docs improvements)
• Did you read the contributor guideline, Pull Request section?
• Did you make sure your PR does only one thing, instead of bundling different changes together?
• Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes?
• Did you write any new necessary tests? [not needed for typos/docs]
• Did you verify new and existing tests pass locally with your changes?
• If you made a notable change (that affects users), did you update the CHANGELOG?

PR review

• Is this pull request ready for review? (if not, please submit in draft mode)

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed.
If we didn't discuss your PR in Github issues there's a high chance it will not be merged.

Did you have fun?

Make sure you had fun coding 🙃

[lijm1358]

Hi, I've reviewed KittiDataset and added test for it, but I'm not really sure about the test. I wanted to test KittiDataset with original KITTI segmentation dataset, but it should be downloaded manually with signin. At first, I tried to download dataset manually in the data_dir and set to skip test(@pytest.mark.skipif) if downloaded KITTI dataset is not found in data_dir, but it seems not a proper way to test. So I added code to create randomly generated image and mask with same directory, name, and classes as the original dataset, and tested KittiDataset with this image. Is it ok to do so, or is there any proper way to test KittiDataset without manual downloading? Thanks 😀

[otaj]

That's a tricky one, but I'd say that the way you tested is just fine - KITTI dataset is quite old, so it has very fixed structure, so generating random things inside that well-known structure is just fine.