fast-track: Add multipart EntityPart tests

[jim-krueger]

Fixes #962

[jamezp]

Looks good to me.

[spericas]

I haven't looked at the styling in the recently added TCKs in detail, but the general indentation and styling in this PR seems very different to the rest of the codebase. Any chance we can make this more consistent?

[jim-krueger]

@spericas I changed tabs to spaces. Was there other style or formatting issues? Thanks

[spericas]

@spericas I changed tabs to spaces. Was there other style or formatting issues? Thanks

Thanks. In general, I think we would prefer this:

                    EntityPart.withName("file")
                            .content("test file", xmlFile())
                            .mediaType(MediaType.APPLICATION_XML)
                            .build());

over this,

                    EntityPart.withName("file")
                    .content("test file", xmlFile())
                    .mediaType(MediaType.APPLICATION_XML)
                    .build()
                    );

in fluent calls.

However, I don't know how consistent we are on this. Maybe we can clean this up and set up some better checkstyle rules after the 4.0 release.

[spericas]

@jansupol Could you also review this one?

[jim-krueger]

@spericas Agreed, I will make those changes. Also, I'm working through an issue related to the handling of Headers that will likely result in some additional changes.

[jamezp]

Looks good to me and the test passes on RESTEasy with WildFly.

[mkarg]

To allow all vendors to run the new test without sacrificing their week schedule, it might be good to remove the "fast-track" marker. In the end, a missing test is not a bug, and I voted -1 for fast-tracking non-bugs.

[jim-krueger]

From the original Committer Conventions:
(2) For non-API, non-spec, non-javadoc changes (e.g., pom, travis, checkstyle, etc) a proposal to fast track the PR is requested at submission time. If a fast tracked PR receives 3 committer +1 votes (and no -1), it can be merged immediately provided at least 1 day has passed since its submission.

This is a TCK change and therefore "non-API, non-spec, and non-javadoc" so it can be fast-tracked. All venders would only be required to run with this after it has been placed in a release and we are weeks (or more) away from that. That being said, this PR is generating enough discussion that it is unlikely to be merged in a fast-tracked fashion.

[jim-krueger]

@jamezp @spericas @jansupol @mkarg Are there any more thoughts/concerns about the contents of this PR? Thanks

[spericas]

In general it LGTM but I'll defer to @jansupol on this one

[jamezp]

LGTM.