fix: fix the problem that nested list cannot be parsed correctly

[juzi214032]

close #2103

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.004%) to 87.161% when pulling fc2d057 on juzi214032:fix/issue/2103 into ac2f383 on mybatis:master.

[juzi214032]

Fix the problem of not being able to parse nested lists by parsing the parentheses in reverse order.
Request a review, thanks! @hazendaz @harawata

[juzi214032]

@harawata @hazendaz TBR

[juzi214032]

@harawata Is it possible to merge this pr

[juzi214032]

@harawata TBR. Thanks!

[juzi214032]

@harawata @hazendaz
Please ask whether this project currently accepts pr it, I see a lot of pr are not merged, I am trying to join the project to develop some features. But if there is no one to maintain and review code for this project, I will give up

[jeffgbutler]

@juzi214032 calm down. We are all volunteers here and doing this work on our own time. Yes, we accept PRs, but they need to be carefully reviewed before being merged. Someone will take a look at this PR eventually.

[juzi214032]

@jeffgbutler ok, sorry. I just want to make sure this project is still in development

[harawata]

Hello @juzi214032 ,

This change breaks the contract of PropertyTokenizer because the following test fails.

@Test
void testIndexedName() {
  PropertyTokenizer tokenizer = new PropertyTokenizer("simpleName[2]");
  assertEquals("simpleName", tokenizer.getName());
  assertEquals("simpleName[2]", tokenizer.getIndexedName()); // actual = "simpleName"
  assertNull(tokenizer.getChildren());
  assertEquals("2", tokenizer.getIndex());
  assertFalse(tokenizer.hasNext());
}

However, it does not break any existing tests which means either 1) getIndexName() actually is unnecessary or 2) there is not enough test.
We should find out which the case is, but either way, this PR may not be the right fix.

[juzi214032]

@harawata thanks review, i will try to fix it