Fix the test for population.CalculateRecruitment()

[Bai-Li-NOAA]

What is the feature?

This PR addresses issue #494 and fixes the test for population.CalculateRecruitment().

How have you implemented the solution?

• update the C++ test here
• register the test to CMakeLists.txt to execute the test when running GoogleTest

Does the PR impact any other area of the project?

No.

How to test this change

The C++ test can be found here.
All GHA checks have passed.

Developer pre-PR checklist

• I relied on GitHub actions to 🧪 things for me while I sat on the 🛋️.

[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).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Files	Coverage Δ
...lude/population_dynamics/population/population.hpp	90.62% <0.00%> (-9.38%)	⬇️

... and 28 files with indirect coverage changes

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!.

[iantaylor-NOAA]

Changes look good. Thanks @Bai-Li-NOAA for sorting all this so quickly.

[iantaylor-NOAA]

Note: based on conversation during yesterday's meeting, now that I've completed the review, I've unassigned myself and assigned @Bai-Li-NOAA so she can choose how/whether to address the minor comments in the unresolved conversations. If I didn't have any comments, I would have just merged since I was the assignee. Once @Bai-Li-NOAA has resolved the conversations, she could either merge the PR or re-assign me if further input is needed.

Please let me know if that workflow doesn't match how we're thinking of using PR assignments.

[Bai-Li-NOAA]

Thank you, @iantaylor-NOAA, for your review. I've incorporated your suggestions and updated the code. Additionally, I've resolved the merge conflicts. The workflow makes sense to me and I have merged the changes into the main branch.