feat(tests): rework tests in numerous ways

[ns6089]

Description

Architectural

• removed BaseTest class and TEST() redefinition, tests don't need to derive from it from now on
• replaced PlatformInitBase that inherited from BaseTest with lightweight PlatformTestSuite, platform initialization/deinitialization is done in static methods SetUpTestSuite()/TearDownTestSuite() and doesn't interfere with fixture initialization
• switched to our own main() entry point from gtest_main

Logging

• logging is now initialized in gtest environment
• all tests are now expected to use BOOST_LOG
• resulting test_sunshine.log can be uploaded as github actions artifact in CI
• this log is shared with normal sunshine outputs
• each test start/result is now printed to the log, automatically through gtest event listener
• each failed test will also print the relevant portion of the log into stdout, implemented as additional stringstream boost log sink in gtest event listener
• added new log level tests hidden behind SUNSHINE_TESTS compile definition
• now sunshine doesn't add stdout boost log sink if it's compiled with SUNSHINE_TESTS
• migrated all tests' cout messages to BOOST_LOG(tests)

Cosmetics

• replaced ::testing namespace with testing, safeguarding against conflicts is pointless when we should not introduce them in the first place
• replaced all instances of class with struct and dropped all access specifiers, here such access specifiers only add noise
• switched parameterized test names from 0,1,2... to custom names where it was applicable

Screenshot

Issues Fixed or Closed

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Dependency update (updates to dependencies)
• Documentation update (changes to documentation)
• Repository update (changes to repository files, e.g. .github/...)

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, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated the in code docstring/documentation-blocks for new or existing methods/components

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.59459% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 7.15%. Comparing base (3088823) to head (0239325).
Report is 126 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/logging.cpp	94.59%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #3059      +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage    7.25%   7.15%   -0.10%     
=========================================
  Files          91      91              
  Lines       16464   16464              
  Branches     7785    7780       -5     
=========================================
- Hits         1194    1178      -16     
- Misses      12672   12687      +15     
- Partials     2598    2599       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
Linux	7.17% <91.66%> (-0.15%)	⬇️
Windows	4.96% <94.59%> (-0.11%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/audio.h	100.00% <ø> (+100.00%)	⬆️
src/logging.h	30.30% <ø> (ø)
src/logging.cpp	61.38% <94.59%> (-16.84%)	⬇️

---- 🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests
• JS Bundle Analysis - Avoid shipping oversized bundles

[ns6089]

Added test run details to the log

[2024-08-21 20:19:20.181]: Tests: From C:/Code/ns6089/sunshine a/tests/unit/test_mouse.cpp:37
[2024-08-21 20:19:20.181]: Tests:   MouseInputs/MouseHIDTest/MoveInputTest/0 started
[2024-08-21 20:19:20.388]: Tests: At C:/Code/ns6089/sunshine a/tests/unit/test_mouse.cpp:16
[2024-08-21 20:19:20.388]: Tests:   Skip: TODO Windows
[2024-08-21 20:19:20.388]: Tests: MouseInputs/MouseHIDTest/MoveInputTest/0 skipped

Maybe not the best formatting, but it's fairly easy to change afterwards.

[ns6089]

Everything is done from my end, if anyone has some issues with particular parts of the PR I can revert them.

[FrogTheFrog]

LGTM

[ns6089]

@FrogTheFrog here you go b20d022, one more LGTM please 🐸

[FrogTheFrog]

LGTM 🐸

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
1 Security Hotspot

See analysis details on SonarCloud