Refactor all Tests from XCTest to Swift Testing

[MinerMinerMods]

Changes:

• Converted all tests to use @Test
• Split all Suites into separate files
• Tagged all existing Tests and Suites.
• Added to .gitignore DocC build artifacts and the .fleet folder

Additional Notes

• Does DefaultBackend work as a mock backend for the purpose of removing the AppKitBackend requirement for the contents of the Backend Suite?

Fixes #196

[stackotter]

Thanks for helping to transition SwiftCrossUI to Swift Testing! I've some comments requesting various changes.

In addition to the self contained changes I've requested, I would also like the tests to be rearranged into 3 suites, rather than the 2 suites that you've rearranged them into (which aren't a correct categorisation). The suite names I'd use are; BackendTests, StateTests and NavigationPathTests. The basic layout test should go in BackendTests, the two state tests should go in StateTests and the remaining navigation path codable test should go in NavigationPathTests.

---

Please limit your use of AI in future PRs, and when addressing these comments, as it makes some strange decisions that I don't believe you would've made by yourself (e.g. the code around line 68 of SwiftCrossUIInternalsTests.swift). Submissions made with AI generally take me significantly longer to review, and have an increased chance that I'll have to request changes.

[stackotter]

Use lower camel case for enum cases (e.g. failedBitmapBack instead of FailedBitmapBack).

That said, due to test errors being purely for reporting, I think this error type would be better suited as a struct with a message field. Then tests can easily report detailed errors without having to create enum cases and update the switch (which adds a bit of a barrier to changing tests).

throw BackendTestError(message: "Failed to create backing bitmap")

[MinerMinerMods]

I believe I found an option where you can treat it like a enum error while still using the struct type. It also has a .new("") function for explicitly declaring them in functions with a explicit throw type. If you don't like this idea just let me know

[stackotter]

I forgot to add, the tests currently don't compile (due to around 14 compilation errors).

[MinerMinerMods]

The Line you referenced was just a byproduct of 3 hours of trying to make that function be completely parameterized. I will just remove it. I will be working on improving clarity before sending in a commit. I can understand that that was really a confusing section.

[MinerMinerMods]

I forgot to add, the tests currently don't compile (due to around 14 compilation errors).

This is mostly because of the conditional compilation on my end disabling the tests inside of the Backend Suite. Removing as much of the conditionally compiled tests should be a future goal to improve these issues

[MinerMinerMods]

Here is a potentially more succinct variant of the test setup

Suggested change

	/// Specifies the values that are saved into the `NavigationPath`
	let Values: [any Codable] = [
	"a",
	1,
	[1, 2, 3],
	5.0,
	]
	// All types are required to be a type of `Codable` to permit encoding it and `Equatable` to satisfy ``compareComponents(ofType:,_:,_:)``
	/// Specifies the types used for indicating the `destinationTypes` paramater of `NavigationPath.path(destinationTypes:)`
	/// Be aware that you still need to add a new expect block for each unique value
	let Types: [any Codable.Type] =
	[
	String.self, Int.self, [Int].self, Double.self,
	] as! [any Codable.Type]
	try #require(
	Values.count == Types.count,
	"""
	Test `CodableNavigationPath` is Malformed.
	`Values` and `Types` must have a 1 to 1 match-up
	"""
	)
	/// Specifies the values and types input into the `NavigationPath`
	let typeValuePairs: [(type: any Codable.Type, value: any Codable)] =
	[
	(String.self, "a"),
	(Int.self, 1),
	([Int].self, [1, 2, 3]),
	(Double.self, 5.0),
	] as! [(any Codable.Type, any Codable)]
	let Values: [any Codable] = typeValuePairs.map { $0.value }
	let Types: [any Codable.Type] = typeValuePairs.map { $0.type }

[MinerMinerMods]

I did consider using a loop but it would have been excessive and overkill as there is only one instance of each type