Updates to RangeSources

[Michael1993]

Closes #671

Proposed commit message:

Make RangeSource annotations non-repeatable (#671 / #670)

RangeSource annotations were made repeatable for the
CartesianProductTest extension. With the removal of the old
extension, RangeSources should be non-repeatable again.

This commit also fixes a bug that threw an exception when multiple
ArgumentSources were present on a test with a RangeSource. Now only
multiple RangeSources are not permitted, other ArgumentSources are
accepted.

Closes: #671 
PR: #670

TODO:

• Document limitation of using multiple RangeSource annotations with a single ParameterizedTest?
• Add more tests

---

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)

[aepfli]

lgtm

[Michael1993]

No automated checks? 😭

[aepfli]

No automated checks? sob

strange actually the branch should be covered within

junit-pioneer/.github/workflows/build.yml

Lines 13 to 19 in d9e926e

	# Each pull request is important to us, doesn't matter from which branch.
	# Furthermore, we do not want to build on just the default GitHub Action
	# events, we also want to react onto `labeled` events for our extended
	# build execution
	pull_request:
	branches: '*'
	types: [labeled, opened, synchronize, reopened]

maybe we remove the branches directive as it is redundant anyways, see https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#running-your-workflow-based-on-the-head-or-base-branch-of-a-pull-request

// EDIT: looks like we do have a bug in the yml and it should be actually **

[Bukama]

// EDIT: looks like we do have a bug in the yml and it should be actually **

I checked that in history, but it has always be single star. I opened #673 for the bug (to don't have it mixed with this PR)

[Bukama]

Looks good. I checked docs and there is no way about repeatable annotation. Maybe we should add a sentence or two?

[Michael1993]

Looks good. I checked docs and there is no way about repeatable annotation. Maybe we should add a sentence or two?

There was documentation about this feature in the deprecated @CartesianProductTest documentation, I believe? Where else would you like this documented (especially considering we are removing this functionality)?

[Bukama]

Looks good. I checked docs and there is no way about repeatable annotation. Maybe we should add a sentence or two?

There was documentation about this feature in the deprecated @CartesianProductTest documentation, I believe? Where else would you like this documented (especially considering we are removing this functionality)?

I was thinking about explicity say, that it is not repeatable anymore (as it was in the old one). Like some kind of migration guide note.

[Michael1993]

Looks good. I checked docs and there is no way about repeatable annotation. Maybe we should add a sentence or two?

There was documentation about this feature in the deprecated @CartesianProductTest documentation, I believe? Where else would you like this documented (especially considering we are removing this functionality)?

I was thinking about explicity say, that it is not repeatable anymore (as it was in the old one). Like some kind of migration guide note.

From a practical standpoint, it was never repeatable in the RangeSource context because the RangeSource extension throws an ExtensionConfigurationException if there is more than one RangeSource on a method, so I don't think that has to be documented for migration.

See https://github.com/junit-pioneer/junit-pioneer/pull/670/files#diff-2f3bbe470c2beba66f0fcc6bd6762f14828f9c966879622ff35b140c293a96eeR77

[Bukama]

Please provide a commit message, so we can merge / close this :)