feat(compare_map_segmentation): add dynamic map loading for voxel_based_compare_map_filter

[badai-nguyen]

Description

This PR to solve this issue 3085 for voxel_based_compare_map_filter nodelete.

The PR utilize the dynamic map loading interface to update current utilize pointcloud map cells.

Related links

TIERIV COMPANY INTERNAL LINK
autowarefoundation/autoware_launch#257

Tests performed

I tested on sample rosbag from Autoware tutorial using split map here: sample-map-rosbag_split.zip

• I have comfirmed that the performance is the same as current Autoware when use_dynamic_map_loading is set as false
• I have confirmed that when use_dynamic_map_loading is set as true: the performance is almost the same with current Autoware, with very small degradation. The reason is:
  。This PR storing voxel grid information of each current surrounding map cells + map cell position and size. However, the precise map cell region and position still cannot receive from map loader interface yet. It is still discussed here: https://github.com/orgs/autowarefoundation/discussions/3328. So map cell position and region are calculate by searching max and min pointcloud.
  。So some input poincloud located between calculated map cell region will be passed through filter. However, this issue occurrs mostly around map cells with sparse pointcloud which far from lanelet and which should not have significant effect to the vehicle behavior.
  This will be fixed after map loader interface is updated.
  

Current Autoware result:
rviz pc rendering, pink:filter output

Poincloud number:
red: filter input, blue: filter output

Updated Autoware:
rviz pc rendering, pink:filter output

Poincloud number:
red: filter input, blue: filter output

Notes for reviewers

Pre-review checklist for the PR author

The PR author must check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.

• I've confirmed the contribution guidelines.
• The PR follows the pull request guidelines.

In-review checklist for the PR reviewers

The PR reviewers must check the checkboxes below before approval.

• The PR follows the pull request guidelines.
• The PR has been properly tested.
• The PR has been reviewed by the code owners.

Post-review checklist for the PR author

The PR author must check the checkboxes below before merging.

• There are no open discussions or they are tracked via tickets.
• The PR is ready for merge.

After all checkboxes are checked, anyone who has write access can merge the PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.03 ⚠️

Comparison is base (873666f) 11.78% compared to head (04c468e) 11.76%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3087      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   11.78%   11.76%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1324     1327       +3     
  Lines       92855    93074     +219     
  Branches    25011    25011              
==========================================
  Hits        10946    10946              
- Misses      70434    70653     +219     
  Partials    11475    11475              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	0.00% <0.00%> (?)
total	11.80% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 9b086e4

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...e_map_segmentation/multi_voxel_grid_map_update.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...compare_map_segmentation/voxel_grid_map_loader.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ion/src/voxel_based_compare_map_filter_nodelet.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...are_map_segmentation/src/voxel_grid_map_loader.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[yukkysaito]

LGTM

[miursh]

LGTM

[veqcc]

@badai-nguyen
Hi, could you explain what does mutex_ptr_ protect?

I can see from your code that current_voxel_grid_dict_ is modified while mutex_ptr_ is locked, but reading of it is not protected.
I encountered a race condition bug at addMapCellAndFilter in the latest Autoware, but I cannot reproduce the race condition bug any more (that is what race condition bugs are :(.

pthread_mutex_lock.c:94: _pthread_mutex_lock: Assertion `mutex->data.__owner == 0' failed.

[badai-nguyen]

I can see from your code that current_voxel_grid_dict_ is modified while mutex_ptr_ is locked, but reading of it is not protected.

@veqcc Thank you a lot for your pointing out my mistake.
Yes you are correct, some reads of current_voxel_grid_dict_ are missing the lock on mutex_ptr_.
Let me fix that.