Fix #628, Update UtAssert macros with dynamic string formatting

[asgibson]

Describe the contribution
Changed all UtAssert macros to take variable string arguments, feature request #628

Testing performed
Steps taken to test the contribution, cFS/main branch commit 20097ef64e455ace25a1535ea43090a739eb7c0c:
https://github.com/nasa/cFS/

1. make clean
2. make ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS=TRUE SIMULATION=native
3. make test
4. All cFE unit tests pass

Expected behavior changes
A clear and concise description of how this contribution will change behavior and level of impact.
UtAssert_True wrapper around call will no longer be necessary to accommodate dynamic string output, thus removing the double assert. UtAssert macros will now be able to offer more information by themselves.

System(s) tested on
PC, RHEL 7.6

Contributor Info - All information REQUIRED for consideration of pull request
Alan Gibson NASA GSFC/587

[jphickey]

Looks good to me!

[astrogeco]

CCB 2020-10-28 APPROVED

[astrogeco]

@asgibson can you resolve the merge conflicts on this?

[asgibson]

I'll take a look

…

________________________________ From: Gerardo E. Cruz-Ortiz <notifications@github.com> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 12:43 PM To: nasa/osal <osal@noreply.github.com> Cc: Gibson, Alan S. (GSFC-5870) <alan.s.gibson@nasa.gov>; Mention <mention@noreply.github.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [nasa/osal] Updated UtAssert macros to use dynamic string formatting (#629) @asgibson<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_asgibson&d=DwMCaQ&c=ApwzowJNAKKw3xye91w7BE1XMRKi2LN9kiMk5Csz9Zk&r=8b4f2gQBiNtlx-jw_I8vXy0R7QYv0bmU_3-lY71WiXo&m=_skT8MQyw6oix3nj7iRRKvcN1EfYWTUnEuU4XZ5Vz7c&s=bcMEg4-aE3BgPCRUe8kVwsfRSt2J2JVPbgQG63igko4&e=> can you resolve the merge conflicts on this? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_nasa_osal_pull_629-23issuecomment-2D720622874&d=DwMCaQ&c=ApwzowJNAKKw3xye91w7BE1XMRKi2LN9kiMk5Csz9Zk&r=8b4f2gQBiNtlx-jw_I8vXy0R7QYv0bmU_3-lY71WiXo&m=_skT8MQyw6oix3nj7iRRKvcN1EfYWTUnEuU4XZ5Vz7c&s=ngPFmidjHB7T9rXk6CFQnYmzl_KwrNbPU3NwQYXQ120&e=>, or unsubscribe<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AOWZ5QML2ET5KFPZDJNPDQTSN3VTTANCNFSM4S2IJXVQ&d=DwMCaQ&c=ApwzowJNAKKw3xye91w7BE1XMRKi2LN9kiMk5Csz9Zk&r=8b4f2gQBiNtlx-jw_I8vXy0R7QYv0bmU_3-lY71WiXo&m=_skT8MQyw6oix3nj7iRRKvcN1EfYWTUnEuU4XZ5Vz7c&s=bnQAgagpT0er6zEuoqJdtYXZenTxXJN-n1e6AmuAhqk&e=>.

[astrogeco]

@asgibson I went ahead and rebased your branch on top of integration-candidate, two tips for next time:

• Build your changes on a separate branch in your fork (not main)
• When conflicts pop up, rebase on top of the integration candidate and always pull from the nasa remote before creating a new branch