Fix #981, rework "unit-tests" to use macros

[jphickey]

Describe the contribution
Update most of the conditions in the "unit tests" to use the support macros whenever possible. The macros display the
function being called as well as the return value being checked for, and therefore this makes it so the test log file can be
cross referenced back to the documentation to ensure the documented return codes are being tested.

As a nice side effect this also removes quite a bit of repetition in the test programs.

Fixes #981

Testing performed
Build and run all OSAL unit tests

Expected behavior changes
Log file produced has much more detail, and can now be cross referenced back to documentation.

System(s) tested on
Ubuntu 20.04 (native)
RTEMS 4.11 (pc686+qemu)

Additional context
See gist of complete test output log for "osal_core_UT": https://gist.github.com/jphickey/ccb739d1f1cf6b36caca73e5ee9205cf
Dependency note: PR #1000 fixes the OS_rmdir test.

Contributor Info - All information REQUIRED for consideration of pull request
Joseph Hickey, Vantage Systems, Inc.

[astrogeco]

CCB:2021-05-12 APPROVED

• Basically a rewrite of most of the unit tests
• Most of the tests were not using the new macros like UT_Setup and UT_RetVal
• Adds new macros like UT_Nominal_OR_NotImpl
• Do we want to move these macros to a "higher level" so others osal tests can use these?
• Why do we even have two sets of tests? Can we combine or move to a single directory?
  • @skliper, could this be an Intern Project?
• The changes were tested by running the unit tests

[astrogeco]

@jphickey see test failures,

The following tests FAILED:
	 72 - osal_file_UT (Failed)
Makefile:125: recipe for target 'test' failed
make: *** [test] Error 8
Error: Process completed with exit code 2.

[jphickey]

@jphickey see test failures,

The following tests FAILED:
	 72 - osal_file_UT (Failed)
Makefile:125: recipe for target 'test' failed
make: *** [test] Error 8
Error: Process completed with exit code 2.

Yes, as noted in the summary, this should be fixed by PR #1000 ( it is actually a FSW bug that wasn't detected by tests until now ).