Improve test setup

[clangenb]

Our test setup is very brittle. Some tests do only run under certain circumstances, e.g., see #163 .

We should fix our CI setup to actually run our tests and make sure that we perform a proper setup before running the tests.

This is now even more important as we start having tasks solved by other developpers who should be equiped with a proper test setup.

[murerfel]

@clangenb has made a big effort to run our tests on GitHub actions - including the M6 and M8 integration tests.
What we're missing, are some tests in the enclave - so far we're only running the 'unit' tests in the enclave, using substratee-worker test -u (see #163).

[brenzi]

I'd expect that after the refactoring going on now we should be able to test enclave stuff even with cargo test. Is this correct?

But regarding integration tests (currently only M4 and M6 in GA), we might actually add substratee-worker test -i
Most of this will be covered by M4 and M6, but IPFS support not yet

[murerfel]

The enclave we still test by running substratee-worker test -u. I think there are some std import/feature issues that prevent us from using cargo test? Maybe @clangenb can comment - there is some related discussion on this topic in issue #272 ?

The worker already has a -i option for integration tests (see here), but we don't run them with GH actions yet, since they would also require a full setup with a running node. According to @clangenb , most of those tests are already covered by the M6 and M8 integration tests.

[clangenb]

Yes, I am even thinking of getting rid of the -i flag, as everything is currently covered in the test scripts.

We could introduce the -i flag again later, but with more meaningful cases, e.g., corner-cases that are not covered in M6/M8.

[brenzi]

IPFS functionality isn't integration-tested by M8/M6

[haerdib]

@mullefel I think this issue is obsolete now, isn't it?

[murerfel]

I think we can close this, yes. IPFS functionality though still isn't tested in any way.. but then again we don't have a use-case for it at the moment and can re-introduce testing for it once we do?

[haerdib]

Yes, I agree. IPFS is not used, and should be long made optional: #491

Additionally, there's even a dedicated issue for IPFS testing: #398