[Cherry-Pick] BaseTools/HostBasedUnitTestRunner: Promote Unittest error to CI fail.

[apop5]

Description

Some unit tests would fail to execute or execute and not produce any output logs. In these cases, the only output would be in the CI Log as UnitTest Execution Error.

A UnitTest Execution Error should be considered the same as a unit tests test failing.

• [ ] Impacts functionality?
  • Functionality - Does the change ultimately impact how firmware functions?
  • Examples: Add a new library, publish a new PPI, update an algorithm, ...
• [ ] Impacts security?
  • Security - Does the change have a direct security impact on an application, flow, or firmware?
  • Examples: Crypto algorithm change, buffer overflow fix, parameter validation improvement, ...
• [x] Breaking change?
  • Breaking change - Will anyone consuming this change experience a break in build or boot behavior?
  • Examples: Add a new library class, move a module to a different repo, call a function in a new library class in a pre-existing module, ...
• [ ] Includes tests?
  • Tests - Does the change include any explicit test code?
  • Examples: Unit tests, integration tests, robot tests, ...
• [ ] Includes documentation?
  • Documentation - Does the change contain explicit documentation additions outside direct code modifications (and comments)?
  • Examples: Update readme file, add feature readme file, link to documentation on an a separate Web page, ...

How This Was Tested

On repo where hosted based unit test failed execution prior to generating test results, CI would pass and CI Log would show "Execution Error" for the unit test.

After integrating this change, CI will fail with a unit test error.

Integration Instructions

For unit tests that are failing, each unit test will need to be examined and individually corrected.

[Javagedes]

supersedes https://github.com/microsoft/mu_basecore/pull/1035 and is a cherry-pick of https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5905

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 1.35%. Comparing base (e1eb585) to head (e23f7a7).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## release/202311 #1039 +/- ## =============================================== Coverage 1.35% 1.35% =============================================== Files 1304 1304 Lines 333854 333854 Branches 5103 5103 =============================================== Hits 4512 4512 Misses 329259 329259 Partials 83 83 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/microsoft/mu_basecore/pull/1039/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [MdeModulePkg](https://app.codecov.io/gh/microsoft/mu_basecore/pull/1039/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft) | `0.68% <ø> (ø)` | | | [MdePkg](https://app.codecov.io/gh/microsoft/mu_basecore/pull/1039/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft) | `5.40% <ø> (ø)` | | | [NetworkPkg](https://app.codecov.io/gh/microsoft/mu_basecore/pull/1039/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft) | `0.55% <ø> (ø)` | | | [PolicyServicePkg](https://app.codecov.io/gh/microsoft/mu_basecore/pull/1039/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft) | `30.41% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.