docs: add duplicate steps example and "Motivation" README

[noodnik2]

🤔 What's changed?

• Added a sub-folder inside of _examples to describe & illustrate the "problem" we're facing;
• A "stepchecker" tool to help detect when it's present, and;
• A proposed "solution" to help us deal with it.

⚡️ What's your motivation?

The motivation and a more detailed description of the example case is described in the accompanying README file.

🏷️ What kind of change is this?

Just an example, which may be of use or inspiration to others facing a similar situation.

♻️ Anything particular you want feedback on?

Yes, everything written above and in the included README file.

📋 Checklist:

• [x] I agree to respect and uphold the Cucumber Community Code of Conduct
• [ ] I've changed the behaviour of the code
  • [ ] I have added/updated tests to cover my changes.
• [ ] My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• [ ] Users should know about my change
  • [ ] I have added an entry to the "Unreleased" section of the CHANGELOG, linking to this pull request.

---

This text was originally generated from a template, then edited by hand. You can modify the template here.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 80.27%. Comparing base (153db4e) to head (54a569f). Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #642      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.21%   80.27%   -2.94%     
==========================================
  Files          28       40      +12     
  Lines        3413     3148     -265     
==========================================
- Hits         2840     2527     -313     
- Misses        458      502      +44     
- Partials      115      119       +4     

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Johnlon]

The text from the first para ... "Running the tests for the two Scenarios separately (e.g., using a separate godog.TestSuite) could "solve" the problem, as matching the common Step text to its scenario-specific Function would then be unambiguous within the Scenario-specific testing run context. However, a hard requirement within our build pipeline requires a single "cucumber report" file to be produced as evidence of the success or failure of all required test Scenarios. "

.... seems contradict the proposed solution

[noodnik2]

The text from the first para ... "Running the tests for the two Scenarios separately (e.g., using a separate godog.TestSuite)...

.... seems contradict the proposed solution

Hmm, okay I guess that didn't come out so clearly then.

What I'm trying to say is that by testing Scenarios individually (aka separately), we can work around the problem of ambiguity; but, that causes the problem (for us) of producing a single report covering all Scenarios, given that godog produces a separate report for each invocation of the encapsulating godog.TestSuite. Looking at the "problem" this way lead me to the proposed solution (see folder) of combining multiple reports into one.

Suggestions welcome for a clearer wording to express this!