Migrate many tests from JUnit 4 to JUnit 5

[liblit]

Most of these migrations were mechanized using IntelliJ IDEA followed by some manual cleanups. A few were migrated entirely manually, such as the expected-to-fail tests in FieldBasedComparisonTest.

[github-actions]

Test Results

   451 files  ±0     451 suites  ±0   2h 44m 54s ⏱️ - 5m 43s
   846 tests ±0     829 ✔️ ±0  17 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
2 804 runs  ±0  2 734 ✔️ ±0  70 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit c68ae74. ± Comparison against base commit cdeb11d.

This pull request removes 530 and adds 530 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJIssue666Test ‑ testPeekErrorCase
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJIssue667Test ‑ testDominanceFrontierCase
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testBinaryLiterals
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testCatchMultipleExceptionTypes
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testStringsInSwitch
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testTryWithResourcesStatement
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testTypeInferenceforGenericInstanceCreation
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testUnderscoresInNumericLiterals
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJavaIRTest ‑ testAnonymousClass
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJavaIRTest ‑ testArray1
…

com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJIssue666Test ‑ testPeekErrorCase()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJIssue667Test ‑ testDominanceFrontierCase()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testBinaryLiterals()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testCatchMultipleExceptionTypes()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testStringsInSwitch()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testTryWithResourcesStatement()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testTypeInferenceforGenericInstanceCreation()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJava17IRTest ‑ testUnderscoresInNumericLiterals()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJavaIRTest ‑ testAnonymousClass()
com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.ECJJavaIRTest ‑ testArray1()
…

This pull request removes 15 skipped tests and adds 15 skipped tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

com.ibm.wala.cast.js.rhino.callgraph.fieldbased.test.TestFieldBasedCG ‑ testBug2979
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestCorrelatedPairExtractionRhino ‑ test20
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestCorrelatedPairExtractionRhino ‑ test3
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestCorrelatedPairExtractionRhino ‑ test7
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestCorrelatedPairExtractionRhino ‑ test9
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestForInBodyExtractionRhino ‑ test14
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestForInBodyExtractionRhino ‑ test7
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestForInLoopHackRhino ‑ testJQueryWithHack
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestJQueryExamplesRhino ‑ testEx1
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestMediawikiCallGraphShapeRhino ‑ testSwineFlu
…

com.ibm.wala.cast.js.rhino.callgraph.fieldbased.test.TestFieldBasedCG ‑ testBug2979()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestCorrelatedPairExtractionRhino ‑ test20()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestCorrelatedPairExtractionRhino ‑ test3()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestCorrelatedPairExtractionRhino ‑ test7()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestCorrelatedPairExtractionRhino ‑ test9()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestForInBodyExtractionRhino ‑ test14()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestForInBodyExtractionRhino ‑ test7()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestForInLoopHackRhino ‑ testJQueryWithHack()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestJQueryExamplesRhino ‑ testEx1()
com.ibm.wala.cast.js.test.TestMediawikiCallGraphShapeRhino ‑ testSwineFlu()
…

[liblit]

Cool, we have the test summary that #1297 added! And it's doing exactly what I wanted, which is to show that this pull request causes no net change in the number of tests being run.

Granted, the report does think that 530 tests were removed and 530 new tests were added. That's because JUnit 4 and JUnit 5 name tests slightly differently: testPeekErrorCase under JUnit 4 becomes testPeekErrorCase() under JUnit 5 when the latter adds trailing parentheses. Ah well, I can live with that. The matching remove/add counts are strong evidence that we didn't lose any test cases during this bulk conversion.

[msridhar]

Obviously didn't review every line of this one, but did some spot checking and it LGTM!

[liblit]

Thanks, @msridhar. This PR was for the big bulk of migrations that were mostly mechanized. I separated these migrations out specifically so that you could just skim, which is exactly what you did. Several other migrations will follow, all vastly smaller, for tests that required manual conversion. Those are more worth your careful attention than this bulk batch. 👍