Continuing unit test shift I : Migrating the unmanageble to the unimaginable.

[R Sharp (r-sharp)]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer:
Code Reviewer:

The way the actual tests were originally set up in UMDP3 checker was "a tad overkill".
They're methods of a class that's no longer used for anything except the the getters to provide the dispatch tables.

The effect can be just as easily achieved by having lists of the functons imported elsewhere.
As the new approach lacks the layer of complexity provided by a whole class, it makes unit testing easier.

As the tests are migrated into the new files, the unit tests for them are also altered to use the "example" code (with modifications to provoke erros)

• is blocked-by Add additional unit tests #226 , as it's built on the files and structure that PR introduces.

Code Quality Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My code follows the project's style guidelines
• Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the readability of the code
• My changes generate no new warnings
• All automated checks in the CI pipeline have completed successfully

Testing

• This change has been tested appropriately (please describe)

Security Considerations

• I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
• Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable)
• Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable)

AI Assistance and Attribution

• Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance of Generative AI tool name (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise, Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the Simulation Systems AI policy (including attribution labels)

Sci/Tech Review

• I understand this area of code and the changes being added
• The proposed changes correspond to the pull request description
• Documentation is sufficient (do documentation papers need updating)
• Sufficient testing has been completed

(Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR)

Code Review

• All dependencies have been resolved
• Related Issues have been properly linked and addressed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable