Add UINT8 and UINT16 equivalents for UtAssert_UINT32_<Comparison> macros

[asgibson]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Using a UINT32 comparison for smaller uint types does not allow for roll-over situations that are considered a pass condition:

UtAssert_UINT32_EQ(Some_uint8_ValueUnderTest, UnknownStartValueThatHappensToBeMax_uint8 + 1);

outputs:
🔴[ FAIL] 01.001 a_test.c:5 - Some_uint8_ValueUnderTest (0) == UnknownStartValueThatHappensToBeMax_uint8 + 1 (256)

Describe the solution you'd like
A UINT8 comparison could provide an output like this:
🟢[ PASS] 01.001 a_test.c:5 - Some_uint8_ValueUnderTest (0) == UnknownStartValueThatHappensToBeMax_uint8 + 1 (0)

Additionally, use could be made of the desc argument in the actual call (UtAssert_GenericUnsignedCompare) to distinguish it from a UINT32 call and add pertinent information for the developer:
🟢[ PASS] 01.001 a_test.c:5 - Compare UINT8: SomeValueUnderTest (0) == UnknownStartValueThatHappensToBeMax + 1 (0)

Describe alternatives you've considered
Adding a typecast to every assert:

UtAssert_UINT32_EQ((uint8)SomeValueUnderTest, (uint8)(UnknownStartValueThatHappensToBeMax + 1));

which does provide decent output:
🟢[ PASS] 01.001 a_test.c:5 - (uint8)SomeValueUnderTest (0) == (uint8)(UnknownStartValueThatHappensToBeMax + 1) (0)

Additional context
The requirement for adding a typecast becomes cumbersome over time, but writing a line like this is simpler:

UtAssert_UINT8_EQ(SomeValueUnderTest, UnknownStartValueThatHappensToBeMax + 1);

and will provide just as much clarity, if not more.

Requester Info
Alan Gibson
NASA/GSFC 587

[asgibson]

Thanks!