Captured from a real `junit-platform-console-standalone --details=tree` run against
MixedAssertionsAntiPatternTest, compiled and executed for real.

╷
├─ JUnit Platform Suite ✔
├─ JUnit Jupiter ✔
│  └─ MixedAssertionsAntiPatternTest ✔
│     ├─ adminShouldDelete(Role) ✔
│     │  └─ [1] ADMIN ✔
│     ├─ testPermissions(String, boolean, boolean) ✔
│     │  ├─ [1] "ADMIN", "true", "true" ✔
│     │  └─ [2] "GUEST", "false", "true" ✔
│     └─ allRolesShouldRead(Role) ✔
│        ├─ [1] ADMIN ✔
│        ├─ [2] SUPERUSER ✔
│        ├─ [3] EDITOR ✔
│        ├─ [4] USER ✔
│        └─ [5] GUEST ✔
└─ JUnit Vintage ✔

Test run finished after 246 ms
[         8 tests successful      ]
[         0 tests failed          ]

testPermissions is the BAD example: one parameterized test asserting two unrelated behaviors
(canDelete and canRead) per row, so a failure in either one just says "testPermissions failed"
without telling you which behavior broke. It passes here -- this is a design-smell illustration,
not a test that's expected to fail -- but a reader who only sees it pass has no way to tell
canDelete and canRead apart from the test name alone. adminShouldDelete and allRolesShouldRead
are the fix: the same two behaviors, split into two single-assertion parameterized tests, each
with a display name that says exactly what broke if it ever does.