Add support for MSTest V4

[lg2de]

Fixes #312.

IMPORTANT

• If the PR touches the public API, the changes have been approved in a separate issue with the "api-approved" label.
• The code complies with the Coding Guidelines for C#.
• The changes are covered by unit tests which follow the Arrange-Act-Assert syntax and the naming conventions such as is used in these tests.
• If the PR adds a feature or fixes a bug, please update the release notes with a functional description that explains what the change means to consumers of this library, which are published on the website.
• If the PR changes the public API the changes needs to be included by running AcceptApiChanges.ps1 or AcceptApiChanges.sh.
• If the PR affects the documentation, please include your changes in this pull request so the documentation will appear on the website.
  • Please also run ./build.sh --target spellcheck or .\build.ps1 --target spellcheck before pushing and check the good outcome

Legal checklist

• This work is entirely original, it is not derived from any existing code incompatible with the Apache 2.0 License, like FluentAssertions.

[cbersch]

LGTM!

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18631759595

Details

• 4 of 4 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 97.512%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 18631145897:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	12626
Relevant Lines:	12808

---

💛 - Coveralls

[lg2de]

Thanks for your review, @cbersch , @ScarletKuro . I found that the renovate bot shall be instructed correctly.
Because I'm not that familiar with renovate, I asked the copilot to create a configuration to restrict the updates according to the relevant projects.
Do you think that is correct?

[cbersch]

Thanks for your review, @cbersch , @ScarletKuro . I found that the renovate bot shall be instructed correctly. Because I'm not that familiar with renovate, I asked the copilot to create a configuration to restrict the updates according to the relevant projects. Do you think that is correct?

I think this is correct, given the current capabilities of renovate.
Unfortunately, nuget ranges currently don't work properly with renovate (renovatebot/renovate#37800).
We also need such a distinction for NUnit, the last update was wrong: #254

[lg2de]

We also need such a distinction for NUnit

I'll do that in a separate PR today.
Tomorrow, when next update should run, we can check the outcome.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[ScarletKuro]

Do you think that is correct?

LGTM