Fix #288, Remove unnecessary CF_UnionArgs_Payload_t union

[dzbaker]

Checklist

• I reviewed the Contributing Guide.
• I signed and emailed the appropriate Contributor License Agreement to [email protected] and copied [email protected].

Describe the contribution
Fixes #288
CF_UnionArgs_Payload_t has been removed, given that only a single member of the 3 is used in CF. That member variable - byte - has been moved into the CF_UnionArgsCmd_t struct, which was the only place where CF_UnionArgs_Payload_t was used.
Re-introduced from #341. #393, #395 reverted this PR.

Testing performed
GitHub CI actions (incl. Build + Run, Unit Tests etc.) all passing successfully.

Expected behavior changes
No impact on logic.

Contributor Info
@thnkslprpt

[dzbaker]

@thnkslprpt I reverted the original (#341) so we could move it to the next release. Does everything look good here?

[thnkslprpt]

@thnkslprpt I reverted the original (#341) so we could move it to the next release. Does everything look good here?

@dzbaker I'm unsure of the effects of this PR as it includes a few other merged commits on top of the original commit removing the CF_UnionArgs_Payload_t union.

It's quite a simple change - maybe easier if I submit a new PR just going from the current main branch with just the removal of CF_UnionArgs_Payload_t?

[dzbaker]

@thnkslprpt I reverted the original (#341) so we could move it to the next release. Does everything look good here?

@dzbaker I'm unsure of the effects of this PR as it includes a few other merged commits on top of the original commit removing the CF_UnionArgs_Payload_t union.

It's quite a simple change - maybe easier if I submit a new PR just going from the current main branch with just the removal of CF_UnionArgs_Payload_t?

@thnkslprpt Yes, thank you, it may be best to submit a new PR and I can close this one.

[thnkslprpt]

@thnkslprpt Yes, thank you, it may be best to submit a new PR and I can close this one.

Cool no worries.
Done (#400)

[dzbaker]

Replaced by #400.