Add test results summary and group logs

[mw-kapilg]

Summary

This PR includes:

• Migration of run-command, run-build modules to this new common utilities repo
• Test results summary view and logs grouping feature (explained in detail below)
• Basic setup for this new TS repo

Details

This feature creates an in-platform summary for MATLAB test results if the user has a MATLAB Test license. Subsequent changes in other actions-repo will follow.

Key highlights:

• Each row of the table represents the test file.
• All tests for a single file are shown under that file.
• The files with same name and different parent directories are shown separately and you can hover over the file name to see its path.
• The table in table format allows easy management of test cases for a test file
• You see the logs in-place for a failed/incomplete. If there are more than failures within a test case, say multiple verification failures, each verification failure will have its own dropdown and log box.
• The help button redirects users to our plugin's configuration guide.

P.S. These utility functions would be utilized in run-command, run-tests and run-build actions to the generate test results summary

Some additional changes:

• The test logs get grouped by test class now
• Updated grouping of logs (similar to run-build task grouping)

Old:

New:

[mw-kapilg]

I'm only able to add 1 reviewer in this pull request, does anyone know why that might be the case?

@sameagen-MW, can you review the pull request as well?

[mw-hrastega]

Will this repo be public? Do you plan on adding some information to the README?

(A brief README example: https://github.com/matlab-actions/workflow-generator)

[mw-hrastega]

Another example: https://github.com/mathworks/matlab-azure-devops-extension/blob/master/README.md

[sameagen-MW]

It will have to public since the rest of the project is open source. A README would probably be beneficial, although I don't see it as a super critical priority since the repo isn't intended for direct customer use (and that should be clear via context)

[mw-hrastega]

Ok, I don't mind deleting the README in its current form. If we want to keep it in the repo, then perhaps a sentence or two would be necessary.

[mw-kapilg]

The repo will indeed need to be public. I'm not sure what are the guidelines for a public repo.

I'm okay with removing the README as well if the guidelines don't have a strict requirement. Yeah, makes sense to add a few lines in the README if we need to keep it.

[mw-hrastega]

@mcafaro, do you think having a README is a requirement for this repo?

[sameagen-MW]

I'm only able to add 1 reviewer in this pull request, does anyone know why that might be the case?

@sameagen-MW, can you review the pull request as well?

Huh, that's interesting. I haven't seen that before and am not sure why that would be the case. Sorry I missed this message before, I'm happy to also review the change

[sameagen-MW]

Looks good to me, although I didn't look super closely at all of the files which were just copied over with no other changes.

I do notice that there's a message in the actions run which might indicate that the plugins aren't getting packaged correctly, here:
https://github.com/matlab-actions/common-utils/actions/runs/19126939215/job/54658903185?pr=1#step:4:34

Could you check up on that to make sure that it's not an issue? Other than that, looks ready to go!

[sameagen-MW]

I don't know whether these copyrights should be changed to just 2025 or not. These are all fresh files, but the code has been moved from somewhere else so it seems murky.

Do you know the right practice here @mcafaro?

[davidbuzinski]

I'm still not a fan of the integration testing style approach where we have to use test data to cover all branches and code paths. It also causes us to keep basically 3 copies of any test data file we make for each platform. The code changes look good though.