fix(compare_map_segmentation): add missing mutex lock

[badai-nguyen]

Description

• To add some missing mutex lock for current_voxel_grid_dict_ which was pointed out here: feat(compare_map_segmentation): add dynamic map loading for voxel_based_compare_map_filter #3087 (comment)
• Rename and separate mutexes for static_loader and dynamic_loader mode to reduce contention and more understandable.
• Remove mutex from constructors

Related links

Parent Issue:

• TIERIV internal link

How was this PR tested?

Tested in Autoware Evaluator

Notes for reviewers

None.

Interface changes

None.

Effects on system behavior

None.

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to the Autoware project!

🚧 If your pull request is in progress, switch it to draft mode.

Please ensure:

• You've checked our contribution guidelines.
• Your PR follows our pull request guidelines.
• All required CI checks pass before marking the PR ready for review.

[veqcc]

@badai-nguyen
At first, please change the variable name mutex_ptr_ so that which data structure is protected by it.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 32.25806% with 21 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 27.33%. Comparing base (06adbc4) to head (1f3b680).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rc/voxel_grid_map_loader/voxel_grid_map_loader.hpp	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
...rc/voxel_grid_map_loader/voxel_grid_map_loader.cpp	50.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ion/src/distance_based_compare_map_filter/node.cpp	33.33%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ion/src/distance_based_compare_map_filter/node.hpp	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
...c/voxel_distance_based_compare_map_filter/node.cpp	33.33%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...c/voxel_distance_based_compare_map_filter/node.hpp	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
...oxel_based_approximate_compare_map_filter/node.cpp	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...oxel_based_approximate_compare_map_filter/node.hpp	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...tation/src/voxel_based_compare_map_filter/node.cpp	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9097      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   28.26%   27.33%   -0.94%     
==========================================
  Files        1306     1304       -2     
  Lines      101091    95745    -5346     
  Branches    39243    39036     -207     
==========================================
- Hits        28573    26168    -2405     
+ Misses      69761    66968    -2793     
+ Partials     2757     2609     -148     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	7.62% <32.25%> (?)
total	27.36% <ø> (-0.91%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 8ecc139

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

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

[veqcc]

Isn't is necessary to take a mutex here?

  if (current_voxel_grid_dict_.size() == 0) {
    return false;
  }

[veqcc]

Strictly speaking, relaxed memory ordering is enough here (I think), but stricter ordering will not invoke a bug, so I will admit it.

is_initialized_.load(std::memory_order_acquire)

After you check the result of Autoware Evaluator again, I will approve this PR!!

[badai-nguyen]

@veqcc I recheck this update on Evaluator again and all tests were passed. https://evaluation.tier4.jp/evaluation/reports/1e5dd036-27fa-5480-b44f-b4ef14d6aa3d?project_id=prd_jt

[veqcc]

LGTM 👍

[badai-nguyen]

@yukkysaito Could you review this PR as codeowner?

[yukkysaito]

The code itself seems fine. However, I haven't thoroughly checked whether the resources being locked are appropriate.
Is it correct to assume that the mutual exclusion control was reviewed by @veqcc ?

[veqcc]

The code itself seems fine. However, I haven't thoroughly checked whether the resources being locked are appropriate.
Is it correct to assume that the mutual exclusion control was reviewed by @veqcc ?

Yes it is.
But I think it's worth being double checked. If you approved it, you are responsible for the codebase. If you do not have enough time for checking it thoroughly, please assign somebody else.