[SUREFIRE-2240] Don't manage JUnit5 artifact versions

[kwin]

This allows to more easily overwrite the version via plugin dependencies

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

• Make sure there is a JIRA issue filed
  for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not
  require a JIRA issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without
  pulling in other changes.
• Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
• Format the pull request title like [SUREFIRE-XXX] - Fixes bug in ApproximateQuantiles,
  where you replace SUREFIRE-XXX with the appropriate JIRA issue. Best practice
  is to use the JIRA issue title in the pull request title and in the first line of the
  commit message.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Run mvn clean install to make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check will
  be performed on your pull request automatically.
• You have run the integration tests successfully (mvn -Prun-its clean install).

If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.

To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.

• I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004

• In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

[kwin]

@marcphilipp Is the assumption right that they always share the same suffix?

[marcphilipp]

Yes, that's correct but I'd feel more comfortable if this didn't have to be known here. Why didn't it work out with the BOM?

[kwin]

The BOM will affect transitive dependencies of overridden plugin dependencies, and therefore leads to incompatible versions/prevents updating the engine

[rmannibucau]

Thinking out loud: any reason to have junit in dependency at all? can't we just use ToolProvider "junit" to launch it and be totally decoupled from junit? Would enable to use the project dependencies and if some is missing (platform) just download it but without any compiling coupling nor need of the bom hell.

[marcphilipp]

The used version needs to match the one in the project's dependencies, i.e. if a build uses JUnit Jupiter 5.10.2, Surefire should use 1.10.2 of its JUnit Platform dependencies. I don't see how a ToolProvider would solve that problem. Could you please elaborate?

[kwin]

@marcphilipp @rmannibucau Let us focus in this PR only on the issue that overriding plugin dependencies as outlined in https://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-surefire-plugin/examples/junit-platform.html#api-engine-versions-segregation does not work.
Bigger refactoring (exclusing of JUnit Engine dependency) should be tackled separately.

[rmannibucau]

@marcphilipp we wouldn't have any provided dependency in surefire itself, everything would be resolved from project dependencies (if provided use else resolve the aligned version) means there is no more bom topic or things like that with a hybrid surefire/project source of dependencies.

[marcphilipp]

FWIWI Gradle recently went that route to no longer include/resolve junit-platform-launcher but require users to add it themselves: https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/upgrading_version_8.html#manually_declaring_dependencies

[michael-o]

This might be related to the upgrade issues I have in #737.