UT_SetForceFail is a misnomer

[asgibson]

Describe the bug
UT_SetForceFail assumes that the value given, that is being set as return value, is a fail condition. There may be sometimes that a function returns more than 1 value that is not considered a fail.

To Reproduce
Use in a unit test where there is a stubbed function with more than 1 "successful" return value.

Expected behavior
Change to something like UT_SetForcedReturnValue to make it more generic.

Code snips
N/A

System observed on:
RHEL 7.6

Additional context
Not a required or debilitating situation, but a name change may be make the function's effects more clear.

Reporter Info
Alan Gibson NASA-GSFC/587

[jphickey]

I concur on that this is not an ideal name -- I was actually thinking this for quite some time but didn't think changing the name was worth breaking test code over it. But it shouldn't be too hard to apply the deprecation procedure if folks agree to change the name.

How about UT_SetDefaultReturnValue() - I think better indicates the fact that "deferred" values and hook return values will take precedence, and that this value gets used when no other return value is identified.

Should discuss in CCB - fairly easy to do, just need other stakeholders to concur on this one.

[asgibson]

I agree with your call on the name.

Thanks.

[astrogeco]

@asgibson will you join today's CCB or will @jphickey "represent" you on this?

[asgibson]

@astrogeco I will not be joining today. I believe @jphickey and I are agreed on the name change. Even if you wish to change the name to something else, as long as the method name is descriptive of what it can accomplish, I am flexible on the actual words used.

[astrogeco]

CCB 2020-08-19 APPROVED concept