Added alg_version details to test output

[pablogf-uma]

This PR aims to fix #1786 by including the implementation path in the test_kem.c file for Kyber implementations. Before moving forward with other algorithms, I would like to confirm if this approach is correct and if the referenced implementation path aligns with the information requested in the issue.

• Does this PR change the input/output behaviour of a cryptographic algorithm (i.e., does it change known answer test values)? (If so, a version bump will be required from x.y.z to x.(y+1).0.)
• Does this PR change the list of algorithms available -- either adding, removing, or renaming? Does this PR otherwise change an API? (If so, PRs in fully supported downstream projects dependent on these, i.e., oqs-provider will also need to be ready for review and merge by the time this is merged.)

[dstebila]

Hi Pablo! The alg_version field of the OQS_KEM data structure is meant to convey some of this information, though it doesn't exactly match what you're outputting. If there is more information you think should be included, I think my preference would be to have this information populated in an additional field of the OQS_KEM data structure so that it's available to be used in other places as well, if need be.

[baentsch]

In addition to the comments by @dstebila allow me to state that OQS is a collection of many different algorithms and the amount of code catering to only some should be minimized as it makes maintenance of the library more and more difficult. Created #2081 to document this recurring issue for good.

[pablogf-uma]

Thank you for your feedback! I included the alg_version field instead, as suggested by @dstebila. Let me know if you would like it to be added to any other tests as well. Also, @baentsch, would this information cover what was requested in the original issue?

[dstebila]

Thank you for your feedback! I included the alg_version field instead, as suggested by @dstebila. Let me know if you would like it to be added to any other tests as well. Also, @baentsch, would this information cover what was requested in the original issue?

Looks good to me! If you convert the PR to "Ready for review" I will give it an approving review.