ENHANCEMENT: bump junit.version from 5.11.4 to 5.12.2 + clean up

[e5LA]

Pull Request Template

What does this PR do?

1. Upgrading JUnit to version 5.12.2.
2. Replacing individual dependencies (junit-jupiter-engine and junit-jupiter-params) with the junit-jupiter aggregator package https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.junit.jupiter/junit-jupiter
3. Moving mockito-junit-jupiter dependency to the parent pom.xml as it was previously declared with explicit versions in some modules. Also, excluding junit-jupiter-api from this dependency since the latest mockito-junit-jupiter version includes older version of junit-jupiter-api, which was causing test failures.
4. Refactoring SimpleFileWriterTest to be compatible with JUnit 5.

Fixes #3259

[github-actions]

⏳ Analyzing changes in this PR... ⏳

This might take a few minutes, please wait

📥 Commits

Analyzing changes from base (8a64f4c) to latest commit (afe3910):

• afe3910: refactor: using junit 5 in the test
• eb70db2: build: moving mockito-junit-jupiter to dependencyManagement
• b684cc7: build: adding junit dependency to the module
• 445b395: build: using junit aggregator
• 04a66d9: build: bump junit.version from 5.11.4 to 5.12.2 + using junit aggregator

📁 Files being considered (30)

🔄 abstract-document/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 abstract-factory/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 active-object/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 actor-model/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 acyclic-visitor/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 adapter/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 ambassador/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 anti-corruption-layer/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 arrange-act-assert/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 async-method-invocation/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 backpressure/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 balking/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 bloc/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 bridge/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 builder/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 business-delegate/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 bytecode/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 caching/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 callback/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 chain-of-responsibility/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 circuit-breaker/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 clean-architecture/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 client-session/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 collecting-parameter/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 collection-pipeline/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 combinator/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 command-query-responsibility-segregation/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 command/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 commander/pom.xml (1 hunk)
🔄 component/pom.xml (1 hunk)

---

autogenerated by presubmit.ai

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[e5LA]

hi @iluwatar,
I'm not sure how Presubmit.ai determines the PR type. I've updated the PR title - would re-triggering the job resolve the issue, or should I update the commit messages instead?

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity.

[e5LA]

Its pending review

[OrangeDoro]

Hi! I'm a grad student working on a research project about using large language models to automate code review. Based on your commit afe3910 and the changes in execute-around/src/test/java/com/iluwatar/execute/around/SimpleFileWriterTest.java, my tool generated this comment:

1. Ensure that the SimpleFileWriter class validates the file paths it receives to avoid vulnerabilities related to path traversal or improper file handling.
2. 2. Ensure that the SimpleFileWriter class is robust against invalid inputs, throwing meaningful exceptions when necessary.
3. 3. Implement a cleanup method to delete any created files after the tests complete to avoid file system clutter.
4. 4. Ensure that the tests clean up any resources they create to maintain test isolation.
5. 5. In the testWriterNotNull method, pass temporaryFilePath directly to the SimpleFileWriter constructor instead of converting it to a string:
7. new SimpleFileWriter(temporaryFilePath, Assertions::assertNotNull);
9. 6. In the testCreatesNonExistentFile method, pass nonExistingFilePath directly to the SimpleFileWriter constructor:
11. new SimpleFileWriter(nonExistingFilePath, Assertions::assertNotNull);
13. 7. In the testContentsAreWrittenToFile method, pass temporaryFilePath directly instead of converting it to a string:
15. new SimpleFileWriter(temporaryFilePath, writer -> writer.write(testMessage));
17. 8. Consider using Files.exists(temporaryFilePath) directly to check for file existence instead of converting to a File object.
18. 9. Instead of using Files.lines(...) to check file contents, consider using Files.readString(temporaryFilePath) to read the entire content at once for better efficiency.
19. 10. Rename the variable message in the testRipplesIoExceptionOccurredWhileWriting method to errorMessage for better clarity.

As part of my research, I'm trying to understand how useful these comments are in real-world development. If you have a moment, I'd be super grateful if you could quickly reply to these two yes/no questions:

1. Does this comment provide suggestions from a dimension you hadn’t considered?

2. Do you find this comment helpful?

Thanks a lot for your time and feedback! And sorry again if this message is a bother.