Shift NumericInput Rules test to separate sub-package

[rt4914]

NumericInputEqualsRuleClassifierProviderTest.kt
NumericInputIsLessThanRuleClassifierProviderTest.kt
NumericInputIsLessThanOrEqualToRuleClassifierProviderTest.kt
NumericInputIsInclusivelyBetweenRuleClassifierProviderTest.kt
NumericInputIsGreaterThanRuleClassifierProviderTest.kt
NumericInputIsGreaterThanOrEqualToRuleClassifierProviderTest.kt

Shift all these to separate package named numberinput in https://github.com/oppia/oppia-android/tree/develop/domain/src/test/java/org/oppia/android/domain/classify/rules

[soamOne]

Hello @rt4914, I would like to work on this issue if possible.

[rt4914]

@BenHenning I have assigned this PR to @soamOne on request.

[soamOne]

Thanks @rt4914 .

[BenHenning]

This isn't fully fixed, see: #1909 (comment) and #1909 (comment).

[BenHenning]

Also, it was moved to the incorrect place: we are using org/oppia/android/domain not org/oppia/domain.

[BenHenning]

Remaining things that should be done per my quick review of the PR:

1. The package of the tests needs to match their directory structure
2. The tests should be under org/oppia/android/domain nor org/oppia/domain
3. The domain module's BUILD.bazel file should be updated to point to the correct test files if they've moved
4. The new package name should be numericinput not numberinput for consistency with the interaction name

[rt4914]

• The domain module's BUILD.bazel file should be updated to point to the correct test files if they've moved

@BenHenning Just checked this on latest develop too and confirmed that it was done incorrectly.

I have doubt in point 3.

• Why did all the test cases pass because BUILD.bazel was not updated. Its because of incorrect PR or the test cases are not dependent on this?

[BenHenning]

@rt4914 we don't run or build Bazel tests in CI currently. Strictly speaking, #3 isn't a hard requirement. I actually only noticed these issues because I was building the Bazel tests locally and it took me a bit to figure out why they weren't building. :) We should fix the Bazel file now that we know it's not setup correctly anymore, and try to keep them up-to-date when we remember.

I'm working on adding the builds to CI, but it's running into some performance hiccups: #1904.

Does this help clarify?

[rt4914]

@rt4914 we don't run or build Bazel tests in CI currently. Strictly speaking, #3 isn't a hard requirement. I actually only noticed these issues because I was building the Bazel tests locally and it took me a bit to figure out why they weren't building. :) We should fix the Bazel file now that we know it's not setup correctly anymore, and try to keep them up-to-date when we remember.

I'm working on adding the builds to CI, but it's running into some performance hiccups: #1904.

Does this help clarify?

Makes sense. My only concern was about missing changes in bazel file. Thanks for clarification.