Fix #2478, Add missing default/break to switch statements

[thnkslprpt]

Checklist

• I reviewed the Contributing Guide.
• I signed and emailed the appropriate Contributor License Agreement to GSFC-SoftwareRelease@mail.nasa.gov and copied cfs-program@lists.nasa.gov.

Describe 2the contribution

• Fixes Several switch statements in cFE are missing a default and/or break #2478
  • switch blocks that were missing default and/or break statements have been corrected
  • a few minor typo-type corrections were added in here as well

Testing performed
GitHub CI actions all passing successfully (incl. Build + Run, Unit/Functional Tests etc.).
Note: Most of the added default case lines are not tested (impossible to test given that all cases are handled explicitly) so the number of missed lines has grown larger.

Expected behavior changes
Effectively no change to current behavior.
Ensuring switch statements are well-formed is good defensive coding for future code changes and improves consistency across cFE.

System(s) tested on
Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)
Current main branch of cFS bundle.

Contributor Info
Avi Weiss   @thnkslprpt

[thnkslprpt]

I can also add a comment in for each default if it's worthwhile - something like:
/* Not currently implemented - should never get here as all cases are handled explicitly. */

[jphickey]

Probably should defer this one until we also add coverage tests to get the default cases. Otherwise it makes the missed lines metric go up. (agreed that there is no actual change or new missed code there, it is just now being reported as such)

Some of them might be unreachable, which brings up the question of which of the opposing coding standards we want to violate (i.e. no unreachable lines or having the default case always in the switch)

[thnkslprpt]

@jphickey in the end it was only 2 problematic cases where the default is unreachable - namely CFE_SB_EnableRouteCmd() and CFE_SB_DisableRouteCmd().

So I rebased this to main and it looks good now. Lots of nice typo fixes as well.