Restructure bitmap unit tests file

[sam-stajnko]

Description

According to the Thoth Tech guide for writing unit tests, you should aim to isolate functionality as much as possible when creating a test. The unit testing for bitmap functions doesn't follow this convention, as many unit tests are testing multiple functions at the same time and some functions are getting tested repeatedly by separate tests. This isn't ideal so what I have done is try to restructure the bitmap unit tests file such that each test only tests the fewest number of bitmap functions at a time and each test is mutually exclusive, meaning that they are isolated as much as possible.

Type of change

• Code Refactor
• Added Unit Tests

How Has This Been Tested?

This has been tested by running all unit tests in a randomized order and ensuring that all tests pass.

Tests can be run from either the terminal or directly from VS Code using Cmake Tools. For more information, please consult the Thoth Tech documentation.

Testing Checklist

• Tested with sktest
• Tested with skunit_tests

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have requested a review from ... on the Pull Request

[JPF2209]

Summary

• this code is good enough to approve for the 2nd peer review

Type of Change

• This piece of code correctly identifies the changes made being a modification and adding functions

Code Readability

• The code is very understandable and clear in what it needs to be comparing it to the other code.

Maintainability

• As this is in the same style as the other code, it's quite maintainable being simple while doing the job.

Code Simplicity

• This code is simple in it's execution following established design patterns and best practices .

Edge Cases

• The code deal with edge cases well

Test Thoroughness

• Tested in sktest and sk_unit_test and they both worked

Backward Compatibility

• The code doesn't break existing functionality in the way it works.

Performance Considerations

• Performance works well but it isn't usually a consideration for this type of change

Security Concerns

• This code has no impact negatively or positively for security.

Dependencies

• There are no new added dependencies.

Documentation

• The documentation provided is through and simple to follow at the same time

[rory-cd]

General Information

Type of Change:

• Unit test improvement

This PR greatly improves the structure of the bitmap unit tests file, with sections isolating functionality, and appropriate resource cleanup. Tests are made more robust with the addition of many edge cases.

Code Quality

• Repository: Pull Request is made to the correct repository
• Readability: The code is easy to read and follow, broken into logical sections
• Maintainability: The code could easily be maintained or extended in the future

Functionality

• Correctness: The code meets the requirements of the task
• Impact on Existing Functionality: The impact on existing functionality has been considered

Testing

• Test Coverage: Unit tests provided for new or modified code
• Test Results: All test passed with skunit_test (73 new assertions in 7 test cases)

Documentation

• Documentation: Inline documentation is updated and clear

Pull Request Details

• PR Description: The problem being solved is clearly described
• Checklist Completion: All relevant checklist items have been reviewed and completed

Optional Improvements

• Use Approx() for floating point comparisons
• Use logging handling to suppress expected warning messages
• Use general "[bitmap]" tag on each test case to improve test targeting
• Suggest REQUIRE(rocket_bmp != nullptr) rather than REQUIRE_FALSE(rocket_bmp == nullptr), as readability is slightly better