Feature barcode detector parameters #24903
Attempt to solve #24902 without changing the default detector behaviour.
Megre with extra: https://github.com/opencv/opencv_extra/pull/1150
**Introduces new parameters and methods to `cv::barcode::BarcodeDetector`**.
### Pull Request Readiness Checklist
See details at https://github.com/opencv/opencv/wiki/How_to_contribute#making-a-good-pull-request
- [x] I agree to contribute to the project under Apache 2 License.
- [x] To the best of my knowledge, the proposed patch is not based on a code under GPL or another license that is incompatible with OpenCV
- [x] The PR is proposed to the proper branch
- [x] There is a reference to the original bug report and related work
- [x] There is accuracy test, performance test and test data in opencv_extra repository, if applicable
Patch to opencv_extra has the same branch name.
- [ ] The feature is well documented and sample code can be built with the project CMake
Fix barcode detectAndDecode #25035
The method `detectAndDecode()` in the `BarcodeDetector` class doesn't return the barcode corners.
This PR fixes the and add test for `detectAndDecode`.
### Pull Request Readiness Checklist
See details at https://github.com/opencv/opencv/wiki/How_to_contribute#making-a-good-pull-request
- [x] I agree to contribute to the project under Apache 2 License.
- [x] To the best of my knowledge, the proposed patch is not based on a code under GPL or another license that is incompatible with OpenCV
- [x] The PR is proposed to the proper branch
- [x] There is a reference to the original bug report and related work
- [x] There is accuracy test, performance test and test data in opencv_extra repository, if applicable
Patch to opencv_extra has the same branch name.
- [ ] The feature is well documented and sample code can be built with the project CMake
This pointer is called unconditionally in BarcodeImpl::initDecode
assuming the size of the image is outside the specified bounds. This
seems to not cause problems on optimized builds, I assume because the
optimizer sees through the processImageScale call to see that it can be
reduced to a resize call. Leaving it as is relies on undefined
behavior.
This was the least invasive change I could make, however, it might be
worthwhile to pull up the logic for a resize so that a SuperScale does
not need to be allocated, which seems to be the most common case.
