Add more tests for create multisig

[Lykhoyda]

closes #445

---

[asnaith]

Left some minor suggestions but mainly on naming convention or typos.

I think in this test context it makes sense to have the several describe blocks to logically separate each screen in the flow 👍

[Tbaut]

Thanks for this.

I'd like to do many more checks such as the ones in the issue, once we passed the creation. Verify the pending Tx (a batch or a remark depending on whether it's been creating with or without proxy).

that there's a remark created
verify the behavior if we already have watched accounts with multisigs, e.g there's no big page with "Multisig creation in progress" but rather a banner "your new multisig is being created..."
check that for a pure creation, there's a pure creation TX pending.

But also things like some error happening when for instance we type in twice the same signatory.
Also we should actually create the pure, and validate the waiting TX for the pure creation.

[Lykhoyda]

@Tbaut and @asnaith thank you for your feedback! Please check again the updated version

[Tbaut]

Please correct the account and remove the chopsticks config. There are an infinity of empty accounts, no need to fake one.

[Tbaut]

Please re-read my comments. I feel like half of what I suggested was ignored, without comment.

[Tbaut]

I added some checks code to:

• check that the text mentions there will be 1 remark or 1 batch depending if we're creating with or without proxy
• check that the waiting tx is the one expected (pure creation or remark)
• fix a test that actually checks that it works to add a signatory without name, and that the account is displayed without name
• check that the first landing page waiting screen is displayed when creating a multisig for the first time
• check that there's a banner that disappears when it's not the first creation.
• we can't add twice the same signatory

[Tbaut]

lmk @asnaith if there's anything important that you think is missing. Anton fixed the main issue, and I've added all the test I mentioned in my comments or that where mentioned in the issue. I think this is a pretty deep coverage.

Ideally, we should now add not only the creation of the multisig, but also the pure, and verify that the UI updates showing the pure in the header once it's available. This is outside of the scope of this issue, but I think it could be added by just extending the test with the pure creation.

[asnaith]

@Tbaut Took some time to look through it again, I think we're all good. This is very thorough now :)

Pushed a minor wording change on a couple of test names

[Tbaut]

Amazing thanks