[CMMN] Make "untyped" `caseExecution` helper mehods `public`?

[martinschimak]

Currently we have

  @Override
  public CaseExecutionAssert caseExecution(CaseExecutionQuery query) {
    return super.caseExecution(query.caseInstanceId(getActual().getId()));
  }

as part of the public API in CaseInstanceAssert. I am not yet convinced that we want to have that. I would actually think that test developers should know in advance what "type" of caseExecution they expect to see "inside" another one - e.g. a MileStone. Therefore they should use the typed method, e.g.

  @Override
  public MilestoneAssert milestone(CaseExecutionQuery query) {
    return super.milestone(query);
  }

This of course also has the advantage that we can easily return a "MilestoneAssert".

Therfore, my "mental model" was/is that we probably (I am not fully sure!) won't make caseExecution(...) public to retrieve "chained" runtime objects.

(By the way: this was also the reason why I did not return a "CaseExecutionAssert" in the caseExecution() methods of AbstractCaseAssert. I thought it is a rather internal method and therefore more convenient to directly return the CaseExecution)

Other arguments?

[malteser]

First of all, sorry for the late answer. As you already may have guessed, I'm using this framework in a customer project and this project kept me very busy last week.
Nevertheless, this also helps me to field test the assertions :)

In PR #64 i wrote that I followed some pattern I thought I had recognized in the BPMN part. But your arguments are very valid and not it feels like I was in a hurry, when I made that method public. As far as I remember, I even argued the same way in favor of having custom-tailored asserts (HumanTask, Milestone,..) instead of a generic CaseExecutionAssert.

We should make that method protected again.