Partial #331, scrub return values

[jphickey]

Describe the contribution
Confirm consistency between the return values generated by each OSAL API and the doxygen documentation. Each explicitly-returned status code should have a corresponding "retval" entry in the documentation.

Also confirms that each explicitly-returned status code has a matching case in the coverage tests that specifically checks for
that return value. Some were actually missing, where as some were just being reported incorrectly.

Finally this also corrects one argument name mismatch in QueueCreate where it was prototyped as "data_size" but implemented as "max_size".

Related to #331 (but more work to do, so should not close yet)

Testing performed
Build and sanity check CFE, run all unit tests, build osalguide documentation and confirmed no warnings

Expected behavior changes
None, test and documentation updates only.

System(s) tested on
Ubuntu 20.04

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

[jphickey]

Note this currently just focuses on the coverage test aspect - i.e. that every return value directly generated by an API is both documented and tested for in the coverage test.

[astrogeco]

CCB:2021-05-05 APPROVED

• Scrubs return codes
• Replace "Fix" with "Partial" or "Related"
• Share return-code script with @ejtimmon
• Open cFE ticket to do the same thing

[skliper]

Needs a follow-on to add all of our standard input checking (even for pass through return codes) along with the black box tests. Probably would benefit from documenting the list - NULL pointer checks (if enabled), filename/path validity checks, etc.

[astrogeco]

Needs a follow-on to add all of our standard input checking (even for pass through return codes) along with the black box tests. Probably would benefit from documenting the list - NULL pointer checks (if enabled), filename/path validity checks, etc.

Should we open a new issue for these?

Also, did we open the issue in cFE to do the same scrub?

CCB:2021-05-05, Open cFE ticket to do the same thing

[skliper]

Needs a follow-on to add all of our standard input checking (even for pass through return codes) along with the black box tests. Probably would benefit from documenting the list - NULL pointer checks (if enabled), filename/path validity checks, etc.

Should we open a new issue for these?

Also, did we open the issue in cFE to do the same scrub?

CCB:2021-05-05, Open cFE ticket to do the same thing

#331 is still open to complete the follow-on in OSAL. Note the tests are still being added in cFE, and have associated open issues. We just need to confirm they check the necessary return codes (follow the same patter as OSAL).