Standardize values and type of outcome

[xbcsmith]

Changes

Submitter Checklist

As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:

• Has the primer doc been updated if a design decision is involved
• Have the JSON schemas been updated if the specification changed
• Has spec version and event versions been updated according to the versioning policy
• Meets the CDEvents contributor standards

[e-backmark-ericsson]

See also #215

[xibz]

@afrittoli - I think this change is fine, but you had some comments from #237, but I think this PR still satisfies your concerns. I think this approach is just standardizing on what word to use to signify passing or failing of a test, in this case success and failure given that other enums rely on success and failure.

[xibz]

This does get rid of cancel. Should that be a value that we still need, though?

[xibz]

@olensmar - Hey Ole, we are interested in enforcing some consistency across events.

So the idea is

• pass -> success
• fail -> failure

While pass is pretty standard to testing frameworks, I'd be okay keeping it as passed, but if we want to use fail, we should decide whether we use fail everywhere or failure. Since failure is used more widely, we opted to use failure. How do you feel about this change?

[olensmar]

@xibz sorry for the later reply - change is fine by me!