refactor(sim,reporting): apply coding standards to sim and reporting modules

[ryanmccann1024]

Description:
This PR continues the codebase refactoring effort by applying comprehensive coding standards to the simulation (sim) and reporting modules. The changes focus on improving code quality, consistency, and maintainability while ensuring all existing functionality remains intact.

🔧 Type of Change

Primary Change Type:

• 🐛 Bug Fix - Non-breaking change that fixes an issue
• ✨ New Feature - Non-breaking change that adds functionality
• 💥 Breaking Change - Change that would cause existing functionality to break
• 🔄 Refactor - Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
• 📚 Documentation - Documentation only changes
• 🧪 Tests - Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests
• 🏗️ Build/CI - Changes to build process or CI configuration
• 🎨 Style - Code style changes (formatting, missing semicolons, etc.)
• ⚡ Performance - Performance improvements
• 🔒 Security - Security vulnerability fixes

Component(s) Affected:

• CLI Interface (fusion/cli/)
• Configuration System (fusion/configs/)
• Simulation Core (fusion/core/)
• ML/RL Modules (fusion/modules/rl/, fusion/modules/ml/)
• Routing Algorithms (fusion/modules/routing/)
• Spectrum Assignment (fusion/modules/spectrum/)
• SNR Calculations (fusion/modules/snr/)
• Visualization (fusion/visualization/)
• GUI Interface (fusion/gui/)
• Unity/HPC Integration (fusion/unity/)
• Testing Framework (tests/)
• Documentation
• GitHub Workflows (.github/)
• Build/Dependencies

🧪 Testing

Test Coverage:

• Unit tests added/updated
• Integration tests added/updated
• Manual testing performed
• Existing tests still pass
• Performance impact assessed

Test Details:
All existing unit tests continue to pass. Manual verification performed to ensure refactored modules maintain their expected behavior. No functional changes were introduced - only code style and structure improvements.

Test Configuration Used:

# Standard test configuration used for validation
[general_settings]
# existing test configurations validated

Commands to Reproduce Testing:

# Run full test suite to verify no regressions
python -m pytest tests/
# Verify pylint compliance for refactored modules
python -m pylint fusion/modules/

Test Results:

• Operating System: macOS Darwin 25.0.0
• Python Version: 3.11+
• Test Environment: local development

📊 Impact Analysis

Performance Impact:

• No performance impact
• Performance improved
• Minor performance decrease (acceptable)
• Significant performance impact (needs discussion)

Memory Usage:

• No change in memory usage
• Memory usage optimized
• Minor increase in memory usage
• Significant memory impact

Backward Compatibility:

• Fully backward compatible
• Minor breaking changes with migration path
• Major breaking changes (requires version bump)

Dependencies:

• No new dependencies
• New dependencies added (list in Additional Notes)
• Dependencies removed/updated

🔄 Migration Guide

Breaking Changes (if any):
None - this is a pure refactoring effort with no functional changes.

Migration Steps:
No migration required. All existing code and configurations continue to work as before.

Before/After Examples:

# Functionality remains unchanged - only internal code structure improved
# No API changes for end users

✅ Code Quality Checklist

Architecture & Design:

• Follows established architecture patterns
• Code is modular and follows separation of concerns
• Interfaces are well-defined and documented
• Error handling is comprehensive
• Logging is appropriate and informative

Code Standards:

• Code follows project style guidelines
• Variable and function names are descriptive
• Code is properly commented
• Complex logic is documented
• No dead code or unused imports

Configuration & CLI:

• CLI arguments follow established patterns
• Configuration validation updated (if needed)
• Schema updated for new config options
• Backward compatibility maintained for configs

Security:

• No sensitive information hardcoded
• Input validation performed where needed
• No security vulnerabilities introduced
• Dependencies scanned for vulnerabilities

📚 Documentation

Documentation Updates:

• Code comments added/updated
• API documentation updated
• User guide/tutorial updated
• Configuration reference updated
• CHANGELOG.md updated
• README updated (if needed)

Examples Added:

• Usage examples in docstrings
• Configuration examples
• CLI usage examples
• Integration examples

🚀 Deployment

Deployment Considerations:

• Safe to deploy to all environments
• Requires environment-specific configuration
• Needs database migration (if applicable)
• Requires manual steps (document below)

Manual Steps Required:
None - this is a pure refactoring with no deployment dependencies.

🔍 Review Guidelines

For Reviewers:

• PR description is clear and complete
• Code changes align with described functionality
• Tests are comprehensive and pass
• Documentation is adequate
• No obvious security issues
• Performance impact is acceptable

Review Focus Areas:

• Code quality improvements in sim and reporting modules
• Adherence to established coding standards
• Verify no functional regressions introduced

📝 Additional Notes

Key Commits in this PR:

• a84910e - refactor: apply coding standards to sim module
• 5a1dcc9 - refactor: apply coding standards to reporting module

This PR is part of a larger effort to standardize code quality across the entire codebase. Previous related work includes:

• SNR and spectrum modules refactoring (c9c303e)
• Routing module refactoring (22e9d48)
• RL module refactoring (d6291d0)

Open Questions:
None - this is straightforward refactoring following established patterns.

Future Work:
Continue applying coding standards to remaining modules in the codebase.

Related PRs:
This continues the refactoring effort from previous standardization PRs for other modules.

---

🏁 Final Checklist

Before submitting this PR, confirm:

• I have followed the contributing guidelines
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published