Cosmetic: use '.. LCP' consistently

unittest/yaml/error-bridgedomain3.yaml

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ test:
   errors:
     expected:
      - "interface .* has an address but no LCP"
-     - "sub-interface .* has an address but .* does not have LCP"
+     - "sub-interface .* has an address but .* does not have an LCP"
      - "bridgedomain .* member .* has an address"
      - "interface .* is in L2 mode but has an address"
      - "sub-interface .* is in L2 mode but has an address"

unittest/yaml/error-subinterface2.yaml

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ test:
   description: "A subinterface cannot have an LCP if the parent doesn't have one"
   errors:
     expected:
-     - "sub-interface .* has LCP name .* but .* does not have LCP"
+     - "sub-interface .* has LCP name .* but .* does not have an LCP"
     count: 1
 ---
 interfaces:

unittest/yaml/error-subinterface3.yaml

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ test:
   description: "Children with an LCP require their parent to have one too"
   errors:
     expected:
-    - "sub-interface .* has LCP name .* but .* does not have LCP"
-    - "sub-interface .* is QinX and has LCP name .* but .* does not have LCP"
+    - "sub-interface .* has LCP name .* but .* does not have an LCP"
+    - "sub-interface .* is QinX and has LCP name .* but .* does not have an LCP"
     - "sub-interface .* has LCP name .* but its encapsulation is not exact-match"
     - "sub-interface .* has invalid encapsulation"
     count: 4

unittest/yaml/error-subinterface5.yaml

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ test:
   description: "Sub-interface with addresses must have an LCP. Gi1/0/0 does this wrong, while Gi2/0/0 does it correctly"
   errors:
     expected:
-     - "sub-interface .* has an address but .* does not have LCP"
+     - "sub-interface .* has an address but .* does not have an LCP"
     count: 1
 ---
 interfaces: