RT/JDJ/resolve na undetermined failures

[JacksonJ-KC]

@jugonzal07 @weilixu @yunjoonjung-PNNL This list of rule test failures and associated solutions to the failures is complete. Once the issues are all addressed and merged the CI should pass for this PR .. I would appreciate any help in knocking out the remaining issues.

1-1-e #1452
4-2-b #1440
4-11-d #1440
5-2-a #1442
5-2-b #1442
5-3-a #1422 (comment)
5-5-a #1422 (comment)
5-7-a #1422 (comment)
5-9-a #1422 (comment)
5-11-a #1422 (comment)
5-17-a #1460
5-17-b #1460
5-17-c #1460
5-28-a #1461
5-38-a #1462
6-2-d #1422 (comment)
6-8-d #1445
19-3-a #1455
19-3-b #1455
19-4-d #1466
19-10-h #1458
19-10-i #1458
19-16-a #1459
19-16-b #1459
22-8-c #1422 (comment)
22-9-c #1422 (comment)
22-17-d #1422 (comment)
22-18-c #1422 (comment)
22-19-e #1422 (comment)
22-28-c #1422 (comment)
22-33-d #1454
22-41-c #1450
23-4-a #1465

[jugonzal07]

This is a really impressive amount of work @JacksonJ-KC ! I'm not sure how you were able to get so much done. Quite a few had issues that were being missed. Thanks so much for documenting and repairing so many of them.

I'm glad to see there's a common thread in many of them with respect to NOT_APPLICABLE. I'm hopeful that there should be a way to update RuleDefinitionListBase to address those broadly. It'd be great if an empty list resulted in NOT_APPLICABLE broadly, without having to redefine every function. Perhaps folks more familiar with that class have some thoughts.

Alternatively, I could interpret an empty "results" list from the evaluate_rule as NOT_APPLICABLE in the ruletest engine. I'm not sure how folks would feel about that though-- it seems like a recipe for misinterpreting a rule evaluation result.

[JacksonJ-KC]

The empty results failure was critical to identifying some of these issues so I strongly recommend keeping that feature.