refactor(behavior_path_planner): unify rtc_interface_ptr in SceneModuleInterface

[takayuki5168]

Description

Currently, by default, SceneModuleInterface has rtc_interface_ptr_ and its related functions such as lock/unlockRTCCommand.

However, some derived classes from SceneModuleInterface like avoidance have rtc_interface_ptr_left/right_ though they still have rtc_interface_ptr_, which makes the developers confused.
In addition, lock/unlockRTCCommand functions have to be modified following an implicit rule depending on the types of rtc_interface_ptr_ (e.g. only one rtc_interface_ptr, or left and right rtc_interface_ptrs)

To remove the implicit rule and redundant implementation for higher maintainability,

• I unified rtc_interface (and its uuid) as an unordered_map.

• I removed functions related to rtc_interface_ptr_ in detailed modules since they can be removed thanks to the above unification.

• TODO

  • deal with the bt architecture
  • check if planning simulator works well
  • check scenarios
    • with BT: 1196/1199 https://evaluation.tier4.jp/evaluation/reports/ccb1c338-04fc-5b2a-857a-6e6e29d84436?project_id=prd_jt
    • including 2 random fails, no problem.
      • baseline: 1198/1199
    • without BT: 1190/1199 https://evaluation.tier4.jp/evaluation/reports/d92e1695-96bd-5896-a6c4-102cf0949321?project_id=prd_jt
      • baseline: 1187/1199 https://evaluation.tier4.jp/evaluation/reports/f3654846-17fd-534b-a1f1-ffcf8495ca25?project_id=prd_jt

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.

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.

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: -0.04 ⚠️

Comparison is base (442f9ac) 12.38% compared to head (8433338) 12.35%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3242      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   12.38%   12.35%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files        1363     1363              
  Lines       95194    95956     +762     
  Branches    27007    27592     +585     
==========================================
+ Hits        11793    11853      +60     
- Misses      71044    71661     +617     
- Partials    12357    12442      +85     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	5.56% <0.00%> (?)
total	12.40% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 442f9ac

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...lanner/scene_module/avoidance/avoidance_module.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...er/scene_module/lane_change/lane_change_module.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
..._planner/scene_module/pull_out/pull_out_module.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...lanner/scene_module/pull_over/pull_over_module.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...th_planner/scene_module/scene_module_interface.hpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...nner/scene_module/side_shift/side_shift_module.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...lanner/include/behavior_path_planner/utilities.hpp	29.16% <ø> (+5.35%)	⬆️
...er/src/scene_module/avoidance/avoidance_module.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ane_change/external_request_lane_change_module.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...rc/scene_module/lane_change/lane_change_module.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 5 more

... and 2 files 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.