New failing test management using Jupiter extension

[JooHyukKim]

This is from discussion regarding FasterXML/jackson#243 (reply in thread).

Descrption

jackson-databind seems like reasonable start since it is extended by most repos.

On approval will do the following for closure ...

• move failing tests to where they belong(?) main /test dir
• get rid of related maven config

Resources

• JUnit Extension Doc

[cowtowncoder]

I think I like the idea of using annotation.

The one last thing I feel uneasy about is the location: while in some ways it is good to keep tests in their logical place (where they'd be if passing), it makes it more difficult to see the set of expected-to-fail cases. So...

• We cannot leave tests under src/test/java/.../failing since Maven settings in parent pom.xml skip these (I mean, we could change it etc but easier not to try that)
• But should there be something like src/test/java/.../tofix package? (sibling to existing "failing" package) Just a naming convention, no special handling, to contain test classes where at least some test methods are expected to fail?

WDYT?

I just like the ability to quickly see all tests that are for things-to-fix.

[JooHyukKim]

Yeah it makes sense since when any test start passing, we need to further take actions.

'tofix' would suffice 😆. Will work on the revision within today

[cowtowncoder]

Looks good -- but will probably wait until 2.19 branch started, after 2.18.0 release in a week or so.

[cowtowncoder]

Re-thinking this one: probably want to do for 2.18. Just need to see how to get things merged best way.

[cowtowncoder]

Merged 3 new classes separately, went cleanly. Now tackling renaming which may get messier.

[cowtowncoder]

Phew! That merge resolution was quite something. But this is now fully merged, for 2.18 and 3.0!

[JooHyukKim]

Phew! That merge resolution was quite something. But this is now fully merged, for 2.18 and 3.0!

Awww, thank u! 🙏🏽 Had I realized the work load, I would've done the merging into master.

Please lemme know next time hehe @cowtowncoder

[cowtowncoder]

@JooHyukKim Sure, not a problem. But I was in the best position to do the merge since I had renamed couple of tests, knew 2 pass in 3.0 but not 2.x... lots of trivia needed :)
Those 2 cases were actually useful in validating that "passing fails annotated tests".

Also: I noticed there was one test (for issue #639 I think) duplicated so was able to delete that.