Reporter tests

[SocksDevil]

Description

Added a series of tests for the different reporters used throughout different scala versions.

I have also taken the liberty to uncomment the tests for the DiagnosticsReporter, since the toolchain flag allows for the usage of this without a development version of bazel (I think leaving them uncommented beforehand was a mistake). Do let me know what you think of that 😄

Motivation

Related to #1161 . This guarantees that different changes made to how the build is interpreted do not break error reporting.

I don't think this should close the issue, since it doesn't yet address problems in error reporting on scala 2.11 when using the DiagnosticsReporter.

[google-cla]

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.

---

What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers

• It's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address on your commit. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.

Corporate signers

• Your company has a Point of Contact who decides which employees are authorized to participate. Ask your POC to be added to the group of authorized contributors. If you don't know who your Point of Contact is, direct the Google project maintainer to go/cla#troubleshoot (Public version).
• The email used to register you as an authorized contributor must be the email used for the Git commit. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• The email used to register you as an authorized contributor must also be attached to your GitHub account.

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

[SocksDevil]

@googlebot I signed it!

[SocksDevil]

I've also managed to fix the error exit code on 2.11 . Is it fine for me to use this pull request to close everything?

[liucijus]

please move failing tests under test_expect_failure, any other tests should go under test

[liucijus]

I've also managed to fix the error exit code on 2.11 . Is it fine for me to use this pull request to close everything?

If this fix does not overlap/depend on this PR, I prefer a smaller separate PR.

[liucijus]

please move failing tests under test_expect_failure, any other tests should go under test

Because these test are version based, maybe they can be moved to a package under version tests, and be excluded in version test case to avoid failure, WDYT @andrefmrocha?

[SocksDevil]

I've gone ahead and made the changes in question. I've decided to keep the package outside since the version_specific_tests_dir but still inside the test_version since, even though I do believe there is a flag so that a specific package is not built with commands such as bazel build //..., I think this would make the tests quite more complicated to read.

Do let me know what you think!

[liucijus]

LGTM!

[ittaiz]

Thanks!