Fix @TempDir not working for @Shared "inherited" fields

[szpak]

I've bumped into that in one of my projects.

A variant of previously fixed:
#1229

Btw, I assume that support for regular static fields hasn't been implemented in that extension purposely, right?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1373 (7071a08) into master (2dbb589) will increase coverage by 79.26%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1373       +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage          0   79.26%   +79.26%     
- Complexity        0     3948     +3948     
=============================================
  Files             0      402      +402     
  Lines             0    12290    +12290     
  Branches          0     1626     +1626     
=============================================
+ Hits              0     9742     +9742     
- Misses            0     1965     +1965     
- Partials          0      583      +583     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...rk/runtime/extension/builtin/TempDirExtension.java	85.71% <100.00%> (ø)
...c/main/groovy/spock/util/EmbeddedSpecRunner.groovy	85.07% <0.00%> (ø)
...ava/org/spockframework/runtime/model/NodeInfo.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...mework/runtime/extension/builtin/SeeExtension.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...spockframework/runtime/SpockComparisonFailure.java	83.33% <0.00%> (ø)
.../java/org/spockframework/compiler/model/Field.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...va/org/spockframework/runtime/ExtensionRunner.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...framework/mock/runtime/CglibRealMethodInvoker.java	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...on/builtin/RestoreSystemPropertiesInterceptor.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...spockframework/runtime/model/DataProviderInfo.java	90.90% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 393 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2dbb589...7071a08. Read the comment docs.

[leonard84]

Btw, I assume that support for regular static fields hasn't been implemented in that extension purposely, right?

Yes