chore(unit-test): Add missing unit tests in modules with low coverage

[eldimi]

Issue: #1096

Description of changes:

Add unit-tests in the following modules: core, logging, validation, parameters & serialization.
The code coverage in the logging module remains low, since some classes that were deprecated where not covered with tests in this PR.
Includes a proposal for a refactoring in the serialization module.

Checklist

• Meet tenets criteria
• Update tests
• Update docs
• PR title follows conventional commit semantics

Breaking change checklist

RFC issue #:

• Migration process documented
• Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[jeromevdl]

Impressive work, thank you! Maybe would have been great to split it in multiple PRs (one per module for example) but that's fine. I've added some comments here and there. The biggest thing for me is the factory stuff you've introduced in the serialization module which is too much I think.

[eldimi]

Impressive work, thank you! Maybe would have been great to split it in multiple PRs (one per module for example) but that's fine. I've added some comments here and there. The biggest thing for me is the factory stuff you've introduced in the serialization module which is too much I think.

Thanks @jeromevdl Do you think I should move the refactoring to a seperate place? There is also something similar which I wanted to do in the validation module (which I didn't do because I wanted to get comments on the serialization refactoring first).
I can create a new PR with the refactoring from this one and also introduce the changes for the validation too.

[jeromevdl]

Do you think I should move the refactoring to a seperate place? There is also something similar which I wanted to do in the validation module (which I didn't do because I wanted to get comments on the serialization refactoring first).
I can create a new PR with the refactoring from this one and also introduce the changes for the validation too.

I think you can remove it from this PR (keep it in a branch somewhere), write an issue/RFC to explain what you want to do and why (benefits and drawbacks). And according on this, we'll create a PR. I may miss something but at the moment I only see a big number of new classes. Maybe it improves testability of the module but it should not come over the size and thus speed of the library.

[eldimi]

Do you think I should move the refactoring to a seperate place? There is also something similar which I wanted to do in the validation module (which I didn't do because I wanted to get comments on the serialization refactoring first).
I can create a new PR with the refactoring from this one and also introduce the changes for the validation too.

I think you can remove it from this PR (keep it in a branch somewhere), write an issue/RFC to explain what you want to do and why (benefits and drawbacks). And according on this, we'll create a PR. I may miss something but at the moment I only see a big number of new classes. Maybe it improves testability of the module but it should not come over the size and thus speed of the library.

Yes, sorry, I saw this comment first and then the one on the actual changes. I wanted to get input too here, since I too had concerns on the jar size, cold starts etc...We can do as you propose with a seperate issue and see if we need it or not.

[jeromevdl]

we are almost good, just a few imports to expand and the Bas64Gzip to change to return null when not found instead of "".

[jeromevdl]

One last thing and we're good.

[jeromevdl]

LGTM !