471 return tm aos structs

[Donnie-Ice]

All Submissions:

• Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?

New Feature Submissions:

• Does your submission pass tests?

Changes to Core Features:

• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?

How do you test these changes?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.79736% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.48%. Comparing base (14ee573) to head (913376b).
Report is 236 commits behind head on dev.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/core/crypto_aos.c	93.33%	3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
src/core/crypto_tc.c	69.23%	3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
src/core/crypto_tm.c	96.61%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #472      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.97%   82.48%   +6.50%     
==========================================
  Files          81       39      -42     
  Lines       22263    12175   -10088     
  Branches     1807      982     -825     
==========================================
- Hits        16914    10042    -6872     
+ Misses       4707     1761    -2946     
+ Partials      642      372     -270     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.

[Donnie-Ice]

I pulled the memory leak fixes into this, so the PR is much larger than it should be

[dccutrig]

Overall this looks fine, pulled and built - all tests ran. We probably need to update standalone as part of this, and likely need to mention this again at JPL Weekly, although maybe not an entire code walk through. Food for thought - do we have integration tests that we can use with standalone? Should we?

[dccutrig]

After discussion yesterday don't need standalone in this PR since CL is a submodule of NOS. Approved!