Fixing false positives for MISRA C++ 2023 Rule 6.5.1 on googletest ma… (#8086)

When running cppcheck premium with MISRA C++2023 Rule 6.5.1 enabled on
unittests using googletests with `--library=googletest`, cppcheck is
flagging each `TEST(test_suite_name, test_name)` with violation of Rule
6.5.1.

The current definition of `TEST(A,B)` in `googletest.cfg` defines the
function without special care, which violates the MISRA rule.

Following the original MACRO definition from googletest, the PR
introduces encapsulation with a class.

Co-authored-by: Florian Mueller <[email protected]>

Author: mueller-florian

cfg/googletest.cfg

@@ -29,11 +29,11 @@
   <define name="EXPECT_THROW(code, e)" value="try{code;}catch(e){}"/>
   <define name="ASSERT_NO_THROW(code)" value="code"/>
   <define name="EXPECT_NO_THROW(code)" value="code"/>
-  <define name="TEST(A,B)" value="void __ ## A ## _ ## B ( )"/>
-  <define name="TEST_F(A,B)" value="void __ ## A ## _ ## B ( )"/>
-  <define name="TEST_P(A,B)" value="void __ ## A ## _ ## B ( )"/>
-  <define name="TYPED_TEST(A,B)" value="void __ ## A ## _ ## B ( )"/>
-  <define name="TYPED_TEST_P(A,B)" value="void __ ## A ## _ ## B ( )"/>
+  <define name="TEST(A,B)" value="class __ ## A ## _ ## B { public: static void testBody( ); }; __ ## A ## _ ## B::testBody()"/>
+  <define name="TEST_F(A,B)" value="class __ ## A ## _ ## B { public: static void testBody( ); }; __ ## A ## _ ## B::testBody()"/>
+  <define name="TEST_P(A,B)" value="class __ ## A ## _ ## B { public: static void testBody( ); }; __ ## A ## _ ## B::testBody()"/>
+  <define name="TYPED_TEST(A,B)" value="class __ ## A ## _ ## B { public: static void testBody( ); }; __ ## A ## _ ## B::testBody()"/>
+  <define name="TYPED_TEST_P(A,B)" value="class __ ## A ## _ ## B { public: static void testBody( ); }; __ ## A ## _ ## B::testBody()"/>
   <define name="GTEST_API_" value=""/>
   <define name="GTEST_FLAG(name)" value="FLAGS_gtest_##name"/>
   <define name="GTEST_DECLARE_bool_(name)" value="GTEST_API_ extern bool GTEST_FLAG(name)"/>