Introduce radio manager+factory for RFM9x

[nateinaction]

Summary

This PR introduces radio factory and radio manager to handle calls to the RFM9x radio.
The factory handles all calls directly interacting with the adafruit library while the manager holds the instance of the radio and manage interactions between the radio and its callers.

How was this tested

• Added new unit tests
• Ran code on hardware (screenshots are helpful)
• Other (Please describe)

[nateinaction]

I don't think I'm going to get the test coverage any higher. With the free version of SonarQube I cannot create my own "quality gate" with a lower test coverage required. We'll have to either:

1. live with these failures until we add more testing
2. remove code coverage reporting in SonarQube
3. stop using SonarQube

As much as I dislike seeing these failures, they're a good push. I even went back and added a few more tests to try and satisfy it... I got close.

[Mikefly123]

I don't think I'm going to get the test coverage any higher. With the free version of SonarQube I cannot create my own "quality gate" with a lower test coverage required. We'll have to either:

1. live with these failures until we add more testing
2. remove code coverage reporting in SonarQube
3. stop using SonarQube

As much as I dislike seeing these failures, they're a good push. I even went back and added a few more tests to try and satisfy it... I got close.

I'm pretty new to these DevOps tools, but would be perhaps consider self-hosting the SonarQube Community Edition to get around this? It's possible we could set up an environment in one of our labs to oversee this kind of stuff.

[Mikefly123]

This PR looks great @nateinaction! I only have 1 requested change on that low_datarate_optimize thing that needs to be updated before merging. Most of my other comments are more just food for thought that we can wrench on with future PRs.

Looking forward to seeing this get into the main codebase!

[nateinaction]

I'm pretty new to these DevOps tools, but would be perhaps consider self-hosting the SonarQube Community Edition to get around this? It's possible we could set up an environment in one of our labs to oversee this kind of stuff.

100% can be done. I'm not sure if it's going to jump to the top of my priority list though. I think we can keep bring up test coverage pretty quickly so it's a temporary annoyance. We're already above 10% on main with more to come!

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
79.1% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[nateinaction]

@Mikefly123 Thanks for your patience, this is ready for rereview. I addressed feedback on low_datarate_optimize and moving hardcoded values to config.

I have replied with questions on your other feedback to hopefully help me understand your mindset. Ultimately I think we are aligned that there are still painpoints and that we are introducing painpoint for satellite operators with extractions like these. I know we can make progress on resolving some of those but I'll need help where I lack understanding.

[Mikefly123]

@Mikefly123 Thanks for your patience, this is ready for rereview. I addressed feedback on low_datarate_optimize and moving hardcoded values to config.

I have replied with questions on your other feedback to hopefully help me understand your mindset. Ultimately I think we are aligned that there are still painpoints and that we are introducing painpoint for satellite operators with extractions like these. I know we can make progress on resolving some of those but I'll need help where I lack understanding.

Hey @nateinaction! Yeah I saw the comments come in yesterday and haven't quite gotten around to replying to them all yet. Sorry to stall getting this PR through, but I can commit to getting back on the horse with this over the weekend after we get through our big design review for SCALES tomorrow!

[Mikefly123]

Okay this all looks good to me!

I am on travel right now, so I don't have the hardware to do and end to end test. If we can quickly verify that the new code behaves and transmits as expected let's merge this thing!

[nateinaction]

Output looks normal: