Use JUnit to tests the programs

[dullin]

Refactored the run method from RarsTest into a testFile method for RarsUnitTest. Converted the text returns into asserts.

Renamed the risc-tests to risc-tests-32 to be more explicit. Moved the licence information to the global licence file.

The checkBinary and checkPseudo are still in the old version, so this is still a draft.

Discussion topics:

• Should we ditch RarsTest if we complete RarsUnitTest
  • Pros : Single file for testing
  • Cons : Now requires JUnit for testing

[github-actions]

Test Results

  4 files   -   8    4 suites   - 8   28s ⏱️ -7s
167 tests +159  163 ✅ +155  0 💤 ±0  4 ❌ +4 
167 runs  +143  163 ✅ +139  0 💤 ±0  4 ❌ +4 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 4d196df. ± Comparison against base commit a94fdec.

This pull request removes 1 and adds 160 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

RarsUnitTest ‑ checkPrograms

RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[10]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[11]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[12]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[13]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[14]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[15]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[16]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[17]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[18]
RarsUnitTest ‑ testRunRV32(String)[19]
…

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[privat]

test-32 is good and should be PRed independently for a fast integration
same for the license thing, this could be in another PR

About ditching RarsTest, I like having it a separate tool, that take parameters and that you can run on your own sample programs.
A better approach anyway could be to integrate in into the main rars tool see #84