8094 Experimental CI Java 17 Maven Unittest build

[poikilotherm]

What this PR does / why we need it:

This adds an experimental build on the Github Workflows for IQSS/dataverse using Java 17. It's easier to recognise what fails with Java 17 if this becomes a part of regular CI.

Which issue(s) this PR closes:

Relates to #8094

Special notes for your reviewer:
Well take a look at the failing CI which should not fail the entire build (which is good)

Suggestions on how to test this:
See build log of the PR

Does this PR introduce a user interface change? If mockups are available, please link/include them here:
Nope, dev only.

Is there a release notes update needed for this change?:
Nope.

Additional documentation:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idcontinue-on-error

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 18.911% when pulling c297577 on poikilotherm:8094-java17-exp-ci into 0ea1f04 on IQSS:develop.

[qqmyers]

Makes sense to start testing. Others are probably better able to comment on the implementation - from my view, if it works and isn't required, it's good.

[scolapasta]

I like the idea of starting to test on Java 17 (and using this framework for other future versions too).

[kcondon]

@poikilotherm Please refresh from develop? Thanks!

[pdurbin]

Once this is merged does it mean we're going to see "Some checks were not successful" on all pull requests until we fix the code to support Java 17? I like the comforting feeling I get from seeing "All checks have passed". With some failures you have to get used to knowing which failures are expected. It would be nice if we could somehow have "All IMPORTANT checks have passed".

[poikilotherm]

Please see this very PR for an example how this will look like.

There is no way to tell GitHub to just print a warning, as GitHub only supports two states: ✅ yay / ❌ nay

This was the exact reason why I added the statement of "Experimental" and "Stable" to the action titles.

[poikilotherm]

@kcondon rebased on current develop.

When pulling from latest upstream, I had a strange conflict for src/main/java/edu/harvard/iq/dataverse/GuestbookResponseServiceBean.java - my local copy of develop couldn't be fast-forwarded for unanalysed reasons.

So I wanted to make it a clean branch here and rebased instead of merging, which needed a force-push obviously.
I dunno how you checkout a local copy of a PR branch, but it might be necessary to git fetch it and reset it in your local feature branch.

[pdurbin]

Please see this very PR for an example how this will look like.

There is no way to tell GitHub to just print a warning, as GitHub only supports two states: ✅ yay / ❌ nay

This was the exact reason why I added the statement of "Experimental" and "Stable" to the action titles.

Now that this has been merged, I'll reiterate that I'm a not huge fan of how every single pull request will now show a red x on it like this:

It means we've lost our ability to tell at a glance if a pull request looks ok.

Also, if you're familiar with broken windows theory, once one thing is broken, other things tend to also break and go unnoticed.

If we're going to work on Java 17 support in #8094 soon, great, let's fix that broken window. As of this writing, however, it hasn't been prioritized. Unless @poikilotherm is actively working on it? I see some commits there.

[poikilotherm]

Looks like we are not alone with this... actions/runner#2347

I don't currently work on JDK 17. Modules #8395 first, so I can push #8320 forward with them (already doing this local).