377 refactor call report f from modelhpp instead of fleet and population

[Andrea-Havron-NOAA]

What is the feature?

• Moved reporting from fleet.hpp and population.hpp to model.hpp

How have you implemented the solution?

• Used nested vectors so reported objects from different fleets or populations do not need to be the same dimension
• Created a new function in inst/include/interface/interface.hpp to collapse the nested vector back to a single vector for ADREPORT

Does the PR impact any other area of the project?

• Output from obj$report() is now formatted as a list with each element of the list being a single fleet or population

How to test this change

• test-fims-estimation.R

Developer pre-PR checklist

• I relied on GitHub actions to 🧪 things for me while I sat on the 🛋️.
• Ran cmake build and ctest locally and the C++ tests passed -->

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Files	Coverage Δ
inst/include/common/model.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
inst/include/interface/interface.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
inst/include/population_dynamics/fleet/fleet.hpp	96.20% <ø> (-0.47%)	⬇️
...lude/population_dynamics/population/population.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!.

[Bai-Li-NOAA]

I'm happy to provide clarification for my questions if needed. Let me know whether these questions should be addressed in this pull request or not.

[github-actions]

Instructions for code reviewer

Hello reviewer, thanks for taking the time to review this PR!

• Please use this checklist during your review, checking off items that you have verified are complete!
• For PRs that don't make changes to code (e.g., changes to README.md or Github actions workflows), feel free to skip over items on the checklist that are not relevant. Remember it is still important to do a thorough review.
• Then, comment on the pull request with your review indicating where you have questions or changes need to be made before merging.
• Remember to review every line of code you’ve been asked to review, look at the context, make sure you’re improving code health, and compliment developers on good things that they do.
• PR reviews are a great way to learn, so feel free to share your tips and tricks. However, for optional changes (i.e., not required for merging), please include nit: (for nitpicking) before making the suggestion. For example, nit: I prefer using a data.frame() instead of a matrix because...
• Engage with the developer when they respond to comments and check off additional boxes as they become complete so the PR can be merged in when all the tasks are fulfilled. Make it clear when this has been reached by commenting on the PR with something like This PR is now ready to be merged, no changes needed.

Checklist

• The PR is requested to be merged into the appropriate branch (typically main)
• The code is well-designed.
• The functionality is good for the users of the code.
• Any User Interface changes are sensible and look good.
• The code isn’t more complex than it needs to be.
• Code coverage remains high, indicating the new code is tested.
• The developer used clear names for everything.
• Comments are clear and useful, and mostly explain why instead of what.
• Code is appropriately documented (doxygen and roxygen).

[github-actions]

Instructions for code reviewer

Hello reviewer, thanks for taking the time to review this PR!

• Please use this checklist during your review, checking off items that you have verified are complete!
• For PRs that don't make changes to code (e.g., changes to README.md or Github actions workflows), feel free to skip over items on the checklist that are not relevant. Remember it is still important to do a thorough review.
• Then, comment on the pull request with your review indicating where you have questions or changes need to be made before merging.
• Remember to review every line of code you’ve been asked to review, look at the context, make sure you’re improving code health, and compliment developers on good things that they do.
• PR reviews are a great way to learn, so feel free to share your tips and tricks. However, for optional changes (i.e., not required for merging), please include nit: (for nitpicking) before making the suggestion. For example, nit: I prefer using a data.frame() instead of a matrix because...
• Engage with the developer when they respond to comments and check off additional boxes as they become complete so the PR can be merged in when all the tasks are fulfilled. Make it clear when this has been reached by commenting on the PR with something like This PR is now ready to be merged, no changes needed.

Checklist

• The PR is requested to be merged into the appropriate branch (typically main)
• The code is well-designed.
• The functionality is good for the users of the code.
• Any User Interface changes are sensible and look good.
• The code isn’t more complex than it needs to be.
• Code coverage remains high, indicating the new code is tested.
• The developer used clear names for everything.
• Comments are clear and useful, and mostly explain why instead of what.
• Code is appropriately documented (doxygen and roxygen).