remove broken E2E tests

[ursfassler]

Summary

Remove broken E2E tests.

Details

Motivation and Context

The E2E/feature-tests depend on the outdated Cucumber Technology Compatibility Kit.

How Has This Been Tested?

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected).

Checklist:

• It is my own work, its copyright is implicitly assigned to the project and no substantial part of it has been copied from other sources (including Stack Overflow). In rare occasions this is acceptable, like in CMake modules where the original copyright information should be kept.
• I'm using the same code standards as the existing code (indentation, spacing, variable naming, ...).
• I've added tests for my code.
• I have verified whether my change requires changes to the documentation
• My change either requires no documentation change or I've updated the documentation accordingly.
• My branch has been rebased to main, keeping only relevant commits.

[luke-hill]

FYI the CCK has been updated a lot recently. It's likely that to get things working / passing you'll need a "set" of updates to all the ruby based technologies at the same time.

I know you're still firefighting a lot here, so let me know if I can be of any help and I'll try where possible to help.

The wire gem "should" now be almost fully re-conformant and using a semi up to date version of cucumber ruby

[ursfassler]

The E2E test used the archived Cucumber Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). The CCK (Cucumber Compatibility Kit) does verify a bit different things and is not used by cucumber-cpp (please correct me if I am mixing up something, it is a bit confusing).

I'd like to integrate CCK, but it seems to only make sense once we support Cucumber Expressions (that would be awesome, because the regexes are bugging me the most when I'm using cucumber-cpp in a project).

[luke-hill]

Sorry you are right. I missed something. Ignore my comment, I was wrong. You are indeed right about it all.

Next step imo is to establish some semi-conformance to using up to date ruby techs. I can either create an issue or let you attack it head on. Either is fine by me.

[ursfassler]

I am not sure what you are talking about 🙈 => would be good to have an issue to explain it a bit.