Fix CartesianProductResolver::supportsParameter

[Michael1993]

Proposed commit message:

Fix CartesianTest supportsParameter check (#633 / #636)

CartesianTest throws an exception if it encounters a parameter it
does not support. This commit fixes that, now it just returns false.

Closes: #633
PR: #636

---

PR checklist

The following checklist shall help the PR's author, the reviewers and maintainers to ensure the quality of this project.
It is based on our contributors guidelines, especially the "writing code" section.
It shall help to check for completion of the listed points.
If a point does not apply to the given PR's changes, the corresponding entry can be simply marked as done.

Documentation (general)

• There is documentation (Javadoc and site documentation; added or updated)
• There is implementation information to describe why a non-obvious source code / solution got implemented
• Site documentation has its own .adoc file in the docs folder, e.g. docs/report-entries.adoc
• Site documentation in .adoc file references demo in src/demo/java instead of containing code blocks as text
• Only one sentence per line (especially in .adoc files)
• Javadoc uses formal style, while sites documentation may use informal style

Documentation (new extension)

• The docs/docs-nav.yml navigation has an entry for the new extension
• The package-info.java contains information about the new extension

Code

• Code adheres to code style, naming conventions etc.
• Successful tests cover all changes
• There are checks which validate correct / false usage / configuration of a functionality and there are tests to verify those checks
• Tests use AssertJ or our own PioneerAssert (which are based on AssertJ)

Contributing

• A prepared commit message exists
• The list of contributions inside README.md mentions the new contribution (real name optional)

[nipafx]

Thanks for finding some time to get to this quickly! 👍🏾 Would it make sense to add tests specifically for setup/teardown methods, like the examples given in #633?

[Michael1993]

Thanks for finding some time to get to this quickly! 👍🏾 Would it make sense to add tests specifically for setup/teardown methods, like the examples given in #633?

I was being lazy but sure. I'll add them.

[Bukama]

Thanks for the fix. Just as a question: Shall the (new) behavior be part of the docs?

[nipafx]

Shall the (new) behavior be part of the docs?

No, the old behavior was a bug and this change makes the code behave as expected.