Add new TLS tests to all driver system tests

[ryanwixon-emerson]

• This contribution adheres to CONTRIBUTING.md.

• I've updated CHANGELOG.md if applicable.

• I've added tests applicable for this pull request

What does this Pull Request accomplish?

This PR implements TLS-enabled gRPC tests in every driver which includes grpc-device related testing:

• nidcpower
• nidigital
• nifgen
• nirfsa
• nirfsg
• niscope
• niswitch

The implementations follow the pattern first established by the trial driver, NI-DMM, in a previous PR (#2208):

• Choose a small subset of tests from the main test runner to migrate to a new BasicValidationTests class
• Add two new test classes to test ni-tls-config enabled workflows (one for enabled mTLS and one for disabled mTLS)

(This PR also makes a minor change to the NI-DMM tests by adding the self test function to the BasicValidationTests class. This is to bring it in line with these drivers, since I decided that it would be a good idea for everything to run it as a part of all of their tests).

List issues fixed by this Pull Request below, if any.

N/A - This PR does not address any issues.

What testing has been done?

The PR CI pipelines successfully ran and indicated that the new tests are running correctly. This is sufficient because the implementation details are identical to that of NI-DMM, which was thoroughly tested with Wireshark to validate that the tests are using the proper TLS configurations and use real encrypted communication.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.13%. Comparing base (28193cb) to head (6fb6f69).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2214   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.13%   88.13%           
=======================================
  Files          88       88           
  Lines       22828    22828           
=======================================
+ Hits        20119    20120    +1     
+ Misses       2709     2708    -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
codegenunittests	84.98% <ø> (ø)
nidcpowersystemtests	94.40% <ø> (+0.04%)	⬆️
nidcpowerunittests	89.53% <ø> (ø)
nidigitalsystemtests	92.04% <ø> (ø)
nidigitalunittests	68.43% <ø> (ø)
nidmmsystemtests	92.33% <ø> (ø)
nifakeunittests	86.08% <ø> (ø)
nifgensystemtests	94.34% <ø> (ø)
nimodinstsystemtests	73.85% <ø> (ø)
nimodinstunittests	94.20% <ø> (ø)
nirfsasystemtests	82.71% <ø> (ø)
nirfsaunittests	63.40% <ø> (ø)
nirfsgsystemtests	81.18% <ø> (ø)
niscopesystemtests	89.99% <ø> (ø)
niscopeunittests	43.20% <ø> (ø)
nisesystemtests	91.50% <ø> (ø)
niswitchsystemtests	81.66% <ø> (ø)
nitclksystemtests	94.87% <ø> (ø)
nitclkunittests	98.26% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ni-jfitzger]

I would say this is slightly inaccurate. The purpose of our system tests is to validate the API, not the driver. As part of that, we do make actual driver calls, but validating the driver functionality would be much more complicated and generally requires real hardware.

The driver is NI-DCPower, but the Python API is nidcpower.
This comment applies to all of the system tests, you're touching, as well as nidmm system tests.