Support testcase properties

[omus]

Adds support for defining testcase properties. Both #103 and #104 are precursors to this work.

Overview of the work done here:

• Removes recordproperty in favor of record_testset_property. I believe recordproperty was inspired from the pytest fixture record_property which is supposed to add properties to testcases.
• Adds record_test_property to allow associating properties against Julia test results. I primarily require this functionality to support this tool. The JUnit XML schema doesn't officially support properties on testcases but other JUnit reporting tools already support testcase properties. Test properties defined on testsets which contain no dependent tests are ignored.

[oxinabox]

It is unclear to me from the documentation changed in this PR what the actual difference between a testset_property and test_property is.

Without understanding that it is hard to review

[omus]

It is unclear to me from the documentation changed in this PR what the actual difference between a testset_property and test_property is.

Without understanding that it is hard to review

I've added some additional details to those docstrings in terms of how they get translated into the JUnit XML report. Hopefully, that addressed your concern. Please feel free to ask additional questions if you're still having a hard time reviewing.

[oxinabox]

So they will be duplicated?

[omus]

No. The properties created through record_testset_property are associated to the testset containing the call and all testsets nested within that testset. The properties created through record_test_property are associated with the tests contained within the testset containing the function call including all nested tests. When rendering the JUnit report this means that calls to record_testset_property are associated with <testsuite> elements while calls to record_test_property are associated with <testcase> elements.

For example:

using Test, TestReports, EzXML

ts = @testset ReportingTestSet "Root" begin
    record_testset_property("foo", 1)
    record_test_property("bar", 2)

    @testset "Inner" begin
        @test 1 == 1
    end

    @test 2 != 1
end;

prettyprint(report(ts))

Results in:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<testsuites tests="2" failures="0" errors="0">
  <testsuite name="Root" tests="1" failures="0" errors="0" time="0.080" timestamp="2024-05-02T09:00:58.607" hostname="awro" id="0">
    <testcase name="2 != 1" id="1" classname="Root" time="0.000">
      <properties>
        <property name="bar" value="2"/>
      </properties>
    </testcase>
    <properties>
      <property name="foo" value="1"/>
    </properties>
  </testsuite>
  <testsuite name="Root/Inner" tests="1" failures="0" errors="0" time="0.053" timestamp="2024-05-02T09:00:58.634" hostname="awro" id="1">
    <testcase name="1 == 1" id="1" classname="Root/Inner" time="0.011">
      <properties>
        <property name="bar" value="2"/>
      </properties>
    </testcase>
    <properties>
      <property name="foo" value="1"/>
    </properties>
  </testsuite>
</testsuites>

[oxinabox]

Got it. this clarified things a lot.
Can this be added into the docs somewhere?
Either in the docstring or in the manual?

[omus]

I've updated the examples in the docstring for record_testset_properties to include some of these details. I ended up not including the raw XML output as I thought it was getting a bit too verbose. Hopefully, the example is as clear as this comment. Let me know what you think

[omus]

I'll merge this PR with the updated docstring. If you think it could be made clearer I can make another PR.

[omus]

Rebased this PR since the code in #110 was extracted from this PR. Hopefully, this PR is easier to read now. The test/properties.jl file unfortunately doesn't have a proper diff due to the file rename and additional modifications

[oxinabox]

Ok, cool now i understand it.
And this looks good to me.
Thank you for breaking this up.

Just one small comment.
Then once this is in and the other one we will do a 1.0 release