OAK-12298: SystemPropertySupplier: allow to signal that property is not present (implies default value)

[reschke]

…t present (implies default value)

[github-actions]

Commit-Check ❌

Commit rejected by Commit-Check.                                  
                                                                  
  (c).-.(c)    (c).-.(c)    (c).-.(c)    (c).-.(c)    (c).-.(c)  
   / ._. \      / ._. \      / ._. \      / ._. \      / ._. \   
 __\( C )/__  __\( H )/__  __\( E )/__  __\( C )/__  __\( K )/__ 
(_.-/'-'\-._)(_.-/'-'\-._)(_.-/'-'\-._)(_.-/'-'\-._)(_.-/'-'\-._)
   || E ||      || R ||      || R ||      || O ||      || R ||   
 _.' '-' '._  _.' '-' '._  _.' '-' '._  _.' '-' '._  _.' '-' '._ 
(.-./`-´\.-.)(.-./`-´\.-.)(.-./`-´\.-.)(.-./`-´\.-.)(.-./`-´\.-.)
 `-´     `-´  `-´     `-´  `-´     `-´  `-´     `-´  `-´     `-´ 
                                                                  
Commit rejected.                                                  
                                                                  
Type subject_max_length check failed ==> OAK-12298: SystemPropertySupplier: allow to signal that propery is not present (implies default value) - add test for case of property set 
Subject must be at most 120 characters
Suggest: Keep the subject concise (<= configured max) 

--- Commit 4/5:
Type subject_max_length check failed ==> OAK-12298: SystemPropertySupplier: allow to signal that propery is not present (implies default value) - fix value check when no default value 
Subject must be at most 120 characters
Suggest: Keep the subject concise (<= configured max) 

--- Commit 5/5:
Type subject_max_length check failed ==> OAK-12298: SystemPropertySupplier: allow to signal that propery is not present (implies default value) - fix value check when no default and validator rejects 
Subject must be at most 120 characters
Suggest: Keep the subject concise (<= configured max)

[rishabhdaim]

@reschke regarding the commit-check failure due to 120 characters, should we increase it further to 200 ?

[rishabhdaim]

In #2995, we are removing this exception, so I would avoid changing this method.

[rishabhdaim]

I would re-write this test to use @Test(expected=....) pattern rather than try/catch.
and add Assert.fail() after the test so that it does test that exception is thrown.