Add tests for InvocationContext.getInterceptorBindings()

[Ladicek]

TCK tests for jakartaee/interceptors#99

Draft because there's a temporary profile to enable using Jakarta staging repository. Once Interceptors 2.2.0-RC1 hits Maven Central, I'll remove that and this PR will be ready.

[Ladicek]

This would be ready now, I believe, but let's keep it as a draft until jakartaee/interceptors#103 is merged.

[manovotn]

Moved from draft to ready for review as the linked PR was already approved.
Also main branch of TCKs is now set for 4.1 so we should be able to get this in.

[Ladicek]

I just realized we didn't add a test for interceptor bindings added through InterceptionFactory. @manovotn would you have some time to add that? If not, I can try.

[manovotn]

I just realized we didn't add a test for interceptor bindings added through InterceptionFactory. @manovotn would you have some time to add that? If not, I can try.

Ok, I'll make a note and send a PR

[Azquelt]

I think this also doesn't test:

• A binding type with additional bindings - not sure if the additional binding should be returned here or not
• Adding an interceptor binding to a method or type using an extension

I can make a PR for the second one, and I'd be happy to do the first one as well if we can determine the correct behaviour.

[manovotn]

Adding an interceptor binding to a method or type using an extension

True, although there is little chance this wouldn't work assuming the interceptor itself is bound correctly (i.e. if that binding was registered, I'd be very surprised if it weren't visible here)

A binding type with additional bindings - not sure if the additional binding should be returned here or not

Good point and those should be returned as well because of the javadoc wording of the method:

* All interceptor binding annotations are returned, including interceptor binding annotations
* that associate interceptors of a different interceptor method type, as well as interceptor
* binding annotations that associate no interceptor.

I can make a PR for the second one, and I'd be happy to do the first one as well if we can determine the correct behaviour.

👍