[FLINK-32858][tests][JUnit5 migration] Migrate flink-runtime/utils tests to JUnit5

[X-czh]

What is the purpose of the change

Migrate flink-runtime/utils tests to JUnit5.

Verifying this change

The change itself is for migrating UT.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): no
• The serializers: no
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): no
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: no
• The S3 file system connector: no

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no
• If yes, how is the feature documented? not applicable

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• 16b7fd1 Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[1996fanrui]

Hi @X-czh , thanks for the contribution.

I didn't finish the review, and just did a quick review. I found a few changes can be improved. These checks can be more specific by their types. Such as:

• The AbstractIterableAssert has a series of checks method for iterable: isEmpty, hasSize, etc.
  • Change the assertThat(testInstance.size()).isEqualTo(0); to assertThat(testInstance).isEmpty();.
  • Change the assertThat(testInstance.size()).isEqualTo(1); to assertThat(testInstance).hasSize(1);
• Using the assertThat(pid) instead of assertThat(pid != -1).
  • Change the assertThat(pid != -1).withFailMessage("Cannot determine process ID").isTrue(); to assertThat(pid).withFailMessage("Cannot determine process ID").isNotEqualTo(-1);

Would you mind finding relevant changes first and improving them? thanks~

[1996fanrui]

Hi @JingGe , I'm not sure should these classes releted to junit4 be marked to Deprecated. Would you mind helping check it? thanks a lot~

[1996fanrui]

Hi @X-czh , could you remove this commit, and squash all commit after address other comments?

Because most of junit4 classes are not marked to Deprecated so far, if you want to do it, it's better to do it in a separate JIRA, and mark all classes togother.

WDYT?

[X-czh]

Thanks for the comments! I've searched through the change list again and improved a few usages in a fixup commit.

[1996fanrui]

Hi @Jiabao-Sun , would you mind helping review this PR in your free time? thanks~

[Jiabao-Sun]

Thanks @X-czh for this contribution.
I left some comments.

[X-czh]

Hi @Jiabao-Sun, thanks for your comments, I will address them today,

[X-czh]

Hi @Jiabao-Sun, I've addressed all the comments, take your time to review it again. Thanks~

[Jiabao-Sun]

Hi @Jiabao-Sun, thanks for your comments, I will address them today,

Thanks @X-czh for the quick commits.
I noticed that there's also some changes is not accepted.
Can you help check it?

[X-czh]

Thanks @Jiabao-Sun, I've addressed the missing comments and applied an improvement to assert exception messages with the assertThat(ex).hasMessage(msg) pattern.

[1996fanrui]

Thanks @X-czh for the contribution and @Jiabao-Sun for the review!

I left some minor comments, please take a look in your free time, thanks~

[X-czh]

Thanks for the review @1996fanrui! I've addressed all the comments. Take your time to review it, thanks~

[1996fanrui]

Hi @X-czh , could you remove this commit, and squash all commit after address other comments?

Because most of junit4 classes are not marked to Deprecated so far, if you want to do it, it's better to do it in a separate JIRA, and mark all classes togother.

WDYT?

[X-czh]

Thanks for the comments, I'll remove the deprecation commit and squash all commit after address other comments

[1996fanrui]

Thanks @X-czh for the hard work, and @Jiabao-Sun for the great review!

LGTM!