feat: Add report section summarizing failing assertions from all tests in a plan

[stalgiag]

see #1253

This PR adds a report table summarizing all failing assertions to the Candidate Review and on Report pages.

There were a number of design and user experience decisions made here that I especially welcome feedback on. There were also a few decisions for which I was on the fence. Namely:

• Whether to keep the FailingAssertionsSummaryTable in a Disclosure. Sometimes the table can be quite large.
• Whether the Candidate Review page should start on the summary page or if it should continue to use the first test as a starting view. I opted for the latter but there is value in both.

[howard-e]

Thanks @stalgiag! Very impressive getting all this added and in a pretty maintainable way as well given where it has to be referenced.

The main issue I've come across is the handling of the priority 0 assertions but I left some inline suggestions on that. Seems this is all very close!

[howard-e]

Suggested change

	{metrics.assertionsFailedCount} assertions failed for{' '}
	{failingAssertions.length} assertions failed for{' '} // or metrics.mustAssertionsFailedCount + metrics.shouldAssertionsFailedCount

metrics.assertionsFailedCount would also cover the MAY assertions which isn't wanted here.

[stalgiag]

I believe this is addressed by 79adb6d

[howard-e]

I believe this is addressed by 79adb6d

@stalgiag the underlying calculation is correct but the result of it isn't being used here. This suggestion should still be done because the MAY assertions from the overall getMetrics calculation is still being counted in it.

It makes it confusing when the result table only has 14 rows but the text notes 24 assertions failed for x commands in y tests

[stalgiag]

Ah yes! Apologies. Brain fog must've been in charge that day. Thanks for sticking to your point 😅

72ba042

[howard-e]

@stalgiag the changes look good! I still have one pressing concern I left inline: #1288 (comment)

Looks good to go for me after.

Also, I'm realizing that my previous concern in our discussion from this thread may just have to do with the structure of the sentence. x assertions failed ACROSS y commands in z tests feels better to me. But once again, maybe it's just my understanding being slightly off. But something to think on if it's raised in the future

[stalgiag]

@stalgiag the changes look good! I still have one pressing concern I left inline: #1288 (comment)

Looks good to go for me after.

Also, I'm realizing that my previous concern in our discussion from this thread may just have to do with the structure of the sentence. x assertions failed ACROSS y commands in z tests feels better to me. But once again, maybe it's just my understanding being slightly off. But something to think on if it's raised in the future

I agree with "across" feeling better. I took the liberty of changing it 😄 72ba042

[howard-e]

@stalgiag one more inline change suggestion because of some confusion I introduced! 😅

Should be good to go afterwards

[howard-e]

Changes look good and very exciting! Thanks for working through all the feedback items!