Refactored four test method pairs

[AliIman]

As part of a research project at the University of Waterloo, we are exploring automatic test refactoring tools and submitting vetted proposed refactorings upstream. These refactorings make it easier to add additional related tests and should help with the maintainability of the tests.
These are all automated refactorings, but we have checked every case and made sure that all the test cases still pass successfully.
If it helps, we can also propose a test case that uses these refactored methods. We explained each of the four refactoring cases briefly below.

1. Test method pair "testRead_partialArray()" and "testRead_partialArray_sliceLarger()" only differ in an int value (8 vs 10). We create parametrized "jimfsInputStreamTestTestRead_partialTemplate(int i1)" method, which allows you to add similar test cases with different argument i1.

2. Test method pairs "testNormalizeNfc_pattern()" and "testNormalizeNfd_pattern()", and "testNormalizeNfcCaseFoldAscii_pattern()" and "testNormalizeNfdCaseFoldAscii_pattern()", only differ in a PathNormalization (NFC vs NFD). We create parametrized "pathNormalizationTestTestNormalizeCaseFoldAscii_patternTemplate(PathNormalization pathNormalization1)" and "pathNormalizationTestTestNormalizeTemplate(PathNormalization pathNormalization1)" methods.

3. Test method pair "testWindows_relativePathsWithDriveRoot_unsupported()" and "testWindows_absolutePathOnCurrentDrive_unsupported()" only differ in two strings ("C:" vs "\foo\bar" and "C:foo\bar" vs "\"). We create parametrized "public void windowsPathTypeTestTestTemplate(String string1, String string2)" method.

[google-cla]

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.

---

What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers

• It's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address on your commit. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.

Corporate signers

• Your company has a Point of Contact who decides which employees are authorized to participate. Ask your POC to be added to the group of authorized contributors. If you don't know who your Point of Contact is, direct the Google project maintainer to go/cla#troubleshoot (Public version).
• The email used to register you as an authorized contributor must be the email used for the Git commit. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• The email used to register you as an authorized contributor must also be attached to your GitHub account.

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

[AliIman]

@googlebot I signed it!

[cgdecker]

Thanks for the PR. I'm not going to merge it at the moment because it's not clear to me that this is an improvement... reducing duplication is generally good, but not as much so in tests where some amount of duplication can make the expected behavior more clear in each test case. But I'll leave it open for the moment because it's possible this could benefit from reducing duplication to some extent.