Add planner name to trajectory info

[sjahr]

Port of PickNikRobotics#5

Make planner id part of the trajectory info to add information about the planner that created a trajectory

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 23 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (0ba9796) 41.67% compared to head (2e4d1d7) 42.87%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on ros2.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             ros2     #490      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   41.67%   42.87%   +1.20%     
==========================================
  Files          79       82       +3     
  Lines        7939     7974      +35     
==========================================
+ Hits         3308     3418     +110     
+ Misses       4631     4556      -75     

Files	Coverage Δ
...e/moveit/task_constructor/solvers/cartesian_path.h	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...eit/task_constructor/solvers/joint_interpolation.h	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...moveit/task_constructor/solvers/pipeline_planner.h	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...oveit/task_constructor/solvers/planner_interface.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
core/src/stages/move_to.cpp	80.29% <100.00%> (+0.29%)	⬆️
core/include/moveit/task_constructor/storage.h	85.11% <91.67%> (-0.76%)	⬇️
core/src/stages/move_relative.cpp	51.60% <50.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
core/src/storage.cpp	49.69% <0.00%> (-0.31%)	⬇️
...tion/motion_planning_tasks/src/task_list_model.cpp	22.83% <0.00%> (ø)
core/src/stages/connect.cpp	88.82% <94.29%> (+1.32%)	⬆️
... and 1 more

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[rhaschke]

@sjahr: Why should we want the nodiscard flag here? Yes, it's stupid to not use the result of a getter function. But there is no problem in discarding the return value.
Apart from that, this change is completely unrelated to this PR.

[sjahr]

My intention with these changes was to let the compiler prevent people from doing something stupid. We've started a while ago in moveit2 to improve the code quality by following the best practices recommendations of Jason Turner and using [nodiscard] liberally was one of his suggestions in the book. If someone wants to discard the return value of the getter function intentionally they can use std::ignore.

I've added that as a small improvement here and did not see much need for opening a separate PR for that. If the reviewers would have requested it, I might have done that but I think for these small and non-critical changes it is easier to just clean them up along the way working on something bigger.