Add example with parameterized Scenario Outline

[mpkorstanje]

🤔 What's changed?

When using a Scenario Outline it is possible to use a placeholder in the name of that Scenario Outline. The resulting pickle will have the placeholder replaced with a value from the example tables.

This allows us to test use cases where this matter such as:

• Include pickle name if parameterized junit-xml-formatter#34
• Include pickle name if parameterized testng-xml-formatter#4

Fixes: #96

🏷️ What kind of change is this?

• ⚡ New feature (non-breaking change which adds new behaviour)

📋 Checklist:

• I agree to respect and uphold the Cucumber Community Code of Conduct
• I've changed the behaviour of the code
  • I have added/updated tests to cover my changes.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• Users should know about my change
  • I have added an entry to the "Unreleased" section of the CHANGELOG, linking to this pull request.

[luke-hill]

I'd argue this is a breaking change as it requires changes to my code to make it work. But given it's a small change I can do it.

Any modification to any existing sample file that requires any new steps or changes to existing ones is in theory breaking

[mpkorstanje]

Ah. So this should have gone into a separate file?

[luke-hill]

I mean the change you've made is perfectly reasonable.

If it went into a new file, then it wouldn't have been picked up automatically until a separate code change is made here: https://github.com/cucumber/compatibility-kit/blob/main/ruby/spec/cck/examples_spec.rb#L7 - This is because it would have failed the spec.

However, notwithstanding that, it would have been automatically picked up by this method (Assuming we ignore CI): https://github.com/cucumber/compatibility-kit/blob/main/ruby/lib/cck/examples.rb#L9 - which then is used in the compatibility spec in the repo proper to iterate over each sample. It is invoked here: https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-ruby/blob/main/compatibility/cck_spec.rb#L11

This feels like an interesting discussion / debate though, because maybe almost "any" non-trivial change to the CCK should be propagated as a breaking (and therefore major), change. I am not sure. My gut says it should be. But happy to be swayed if required.

Nevertheless, I released v16 of the cck which had a couple of minor tweaks plus the change to attachments