Consistent naming of mocks

[cameron-craig-etas]

#422

This PR tidies up the naming of our mocks. I have gone with the mock_ prefix convention, as it:

• conforms to GTest conventions of mock_component files and MockComponent classes.
• is an existing style used within the code base, just not consistently

(Feel free to suggest an alternative naming convention. This is just what made sense to me)

This is a breaking change because mocks under score/launch_manager/src/lifecycle_client/src/ are exposed to users.

[github-actions]

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 7d2b15b1-30ad-4dcf-bf04-6d7f25d4ec93
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 1 packages loaded
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (36 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (90 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (104 packages loaded, 50 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (150 packages loaded, 3143 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (159 packages loaded, 6913 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (170 packages loaded, 9397 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (170 packages loaded, 9397 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (172 packages loaded, 9522 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (175 packages loaded, 11535 targets configured).
[12 / 16] [Prepa] JavaToolchainCompileClasses external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath_classes
[14 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 26.106s, Critical Path: 2.50s
INFO: 16 processes: 12 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 16 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

[github-actions]

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

[TimoSteuerwaldETAS]

I like the prefix convention. 👍

However for the integration tests, I would prefer using completely different names here.
In fact these aren't Mocks at all, these are rather Stubs or Fake objects.
See also: Mocks Aren't Stubs

What do you think?

It is not needed to be done in this PR. I can also add a github issue for that and for conformity just leave it as proposed by you. :-)

Renaming to ControlClientStub or ControlClientFake would involve more than just a file rename anyways.

[cameron-craig-etas]

I like the prefix convention. 👍

However for the integration tests, I would prefer using completely different names here. In fact these aren't Mocks at all, these are rather Stubs or Fake objects. See also: Mocks Aren't Stubs

What do you think?

It is not needed to be done in this PR. I can also add a github issue for that and for conformity just leave it as proposed by you. :-)

Renaming to ControlClientStub or ControlClientFake would involve more than just a file rename anyways.

Ah ok, I haven't looked too deep into these files, so I hadn't spotted that. I agree that these mocks, stubs (or whatever they may be) should be named more appropriately. I'll do this in a follow-up PR to prevent this one from getting any bigger.

[TimoSteuerwaldETAS]

Created successor story for renaming the MockControlClients to Stubs: #458

Beside that, everything is fine.