Allow multiple URL parameters in auto tests endpoints.

[jonathan-r-thorpe]

• This removes the current limitation of a single URL parameter in an endpoint URL when running auto tests.
• This is a problem for the emerging IS-14 API as this has endpoints with two URL parameters.
• This code is generalized to allow any number of URL parameters, simplifying the existing implementation.

[garethsb]

This is awesome, no doubt... one of those cases where it feels like test code needs tests to ensure no regression, or at least maybe a demo on all the existing parameterized APIs that the same coverage is produced by the new implementation, maybe?

[jonathan-r-thorpe]

Thanks @garethsb! I'm going to modify the code so the error message format is identical to the original code: this code just reports the path with the parameters embedded, whereas the original code reports the parameter values only. (In the case of no parameters, including the path seems a bit redundant).

I was then going to do an A/B comparison for each of the test suites against nmos-cpp's Node and Registry. Assuming there are no differences would that be sufficient to prove no regressions?

[garethsb]

Sounds great to me! Can check all IS-04 APIs, IS-05, IS-07, IS-08, this way. I guess you may want to do one test with non-zero MAX_TEST_ITERATIONS too?

[jonathan-r-thorpe]

I can confirm that the auto tests run identically with this PR. I ran in both secure and authorized mode, with MAX_TEST_ITERATIONS both set and unset. I ran, and compared the following test suites, all of which gave identical results:

• IS-04-01
• IS-04-02
• IS-04-03
• IS-05-01
• IS-05-02
• IS-07-01
• IS-07-02
• IS-08-01
• IS-08-02

The only difference were in IS-04-02, the PR "revealed" a couple of "hidden endpoints" in the registration API that had two parameters in them (see images below).

In summary, I didn't find any regressions.

Original test suite results (partial)

After the PR is applied, "auto_registration_5" and "auto_registration_6" are "revealed". However no resources to test them :(

[garethsb]

Looks better than good to me! Thank you, @jonathan-r-thorpe