Introduce commentCharacter property in @Csv{File}Source

[vdmitrienko]

---

I hereby agree to the terms of the JUnit Contributor License Agreement.

---

#5028

Definition of Done

• There are no TODOs left in the code
• Method preconditions are checked and documented in the method's Javadoc
• Coding conventions (e.g. for logging) have been followed
• Change is covered by automated tests including corner cases, errors, and exception handling
• Public API has Javadoc and @API annotations
• Change is documented in the User Guide and Release Notes

[vdmitrienko]

@vdmitrienko, is this PR "ready for review"?

@sbrannen, I’d like to update the User Guide and Release Notes, but other than that, it’s ready.

UPD

The User Guide and Release Notes updated ✔️

[vdmitrienko]

@marcphilipp, @sbrannen, I'm a bit confused 😅 . According to the compatibility scan, this new method is a source-incompatible change, even though it has a default value:

char commentCharacter() default '#';

Could you take a look?

[marcphilipp]

I'm a bit confused 😅 . According to the compatibility scan, this new method is a source-incompatible change, even though it has a default value

Looks like that's a false-positive reported by japicmp:

• New method in annotation with default value reported as METHOD_ABSTRACT_ADDED_TO_CLASS siom79/japicmp#249

I hope that we can switch to roseau soon (see #5010) because it seems to be more precise.

For now, I just pushed a commit adding the two new attributes to the list of "accepted breaking changes" even though we know they're not actually breaking.

[marcphilipp]

Suggested change

	`delimiterString` attribute was set to #. This occurred because `#` was used
	`delimiterString` attribute was set to `#`. This occurred because `#` was used

[sbrannen]

New method in annotation with default value reported as METHOD_ABSTRACT_ADDED_TO_CLASS siom79/japicmp#249

Ahhh, good that that's already been reported. 👍

I hope that we can switch to roseau soon (see #5010) because it seems to be more precise.

🤞

For now, I just pushed a commit adding the two new attributes to the list of "accepted breaking changes" even though we know they're not actually breaking.

Oh man... I literally did that at the same time as you (perhaps even before you), but I was away from the computer and came back to find you'd already pushed the same fix. 😆

Though, I sorted the entries alphabetically. 😉

[sbrannen]

Looking very good! 👍

I've requested a few minor changes.

[sbrannen]

"looses" -> "loses"