IntelliJ/Java: Duplicate code -- Refactored as CLIReportUnexpectedExceptionHelper

[jsoref]

This is for discussion.

Notes:

• Commits was probably created by IntelliJ for Java cleanup #4034
• In general, commits should not change program behavior at all

Proposed changelog entries

• Internal: Internal Java code cleanup

Submitter checklist

• JIRA issue is well described
• Changelog entry appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developer, depending on the change). Examples
  * Use the Internal: prefix if the change has no user-visible impact (API, test frameworks, etc.)
• Appropriate autotests or explanation to why this change has no tests
• For dependency updates: links to external changelogs and, if possible, full diffs

Desired reviewers

@Wadeck

[jsoref]

(This isn't ready, it's split so that it doesn't get lost)

[oleg-nenashev]

No need in a new class, it can be put to CLICommand directly. If there is a justification for such new public helper class, it should be documented properly and put to a new package (jenkins.cli or so)

[fcojfernandez]

@oleg-nenashev requested changes on Jul and there has been no activity since then, so I'm proposing for close. @jsoref please, if you are still interested in this PR, let me know so I can remove the label

[jsoref]

@fcojfernandez: Sorry, I think when I first worked on this I couldn't figure out how to get the other package to access the higher class. Here we go.

[zbynek]

Whitespace got removed in this PR, IMHO it should be kept (consistency within file and with https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s4.6.2-horizontal-whitespace )

[daniel-beck]

Not an API change if @Restricted.

[varyvol]

@jsoref Could you maybe resolve the merge conflict? This seems close to be ready once the conflict is solved.

[jsoref]

The conflicts are with #4641 which did something similar. I'll try to look at it over the weekend.

[daniel-beck]

The other PR mostly took care of other redundancy IIRC, these should nicely complement each other.

[varyvol]

@jsoref I've resolved the conflicts by making the function you introduced call the one introduced under #4641. Could you please confirm you are fine with it?

[alecharp]

@jsoref Could you please get back to us on this one? It seems it need a bit of work (build failures) but it seems good. Thanks.

[jsoref]

@varyvol: now I remember why I didn't push that. I hit the static issues that the build has now. The functions in question have lost this and thus can't play nicely. I scratched my head and sighed.

[alecharp]

@jsoref do you think you can move this PR forward or should we close it? Thanks.

[alecharp]

Adding the proposed-for-close label, unless you have time to work on this @jsoref.

[jsoref]

I really can't figure out a good way to resolve this and I don't have the cycles to poke it.