[CO-436] Change integration tests way of confirming transactions

[paweljakubas]

Description

Here we are switching in a enterprise of confirming the transaction into looking at the status of the transaction. The current tests rely on the confirmation number, which is not correct. The only reason those tests don't fail entirely at this moment is because there is an implicit ordering at the creation_time of the tx. So when the tests take the first tx of the list and check on it, this happens to be the correct tx. But this is very unreliable.

In a nutshell we demand that the transaction's status is either InNewestBlocks or Persisted

Linked issue

https://iohk.myjetbrains.com/youtrack/issue/CO-436

Type of change

• [] 🐞 Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• 🛠 New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• ⚠️ Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• 🏭 Refactoring that does not change existing functionality but does improve things like code readability, structure etc
• 🔨 New or improved tests for existing code
• ⛑ git-flow chore (backport, hotfix, etc)

Developer checklist

• I have read the style guide document, and my code follows the code style of this project.
• If my code deals with exceptions, it follows the guidelines.
• I have updated any documentation accordingly, if needed. Documentation changes can be reflected in opening a PR on cardanodocs.com, amending the inline Haddock comments, any relevant README file or one of the document listed in the docs directory.
• CHANGELOG entry has been added and is linked to the correct PR on GitHub.

Testing checklist

• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

QA Steps

nix-build -A walletIntegrationTests -o launch_integration_tests --arg useStackBinaries true
./launch_integration_tests

Screenshots (if available)

[KtorZ]

I read it the other way around. Isn't [InNewestBlocks, Persisted] which should contain [txStatus txnEntry] ?

[KtorZ]

I'd rather have a naming that matches HSpec's style here. Something like:

txn `shouldBeConfirmed` resp

[KtorZ]

If those are only used in the above function, let's make them part of a where clause. There's no reason why they should be available for the rest.

[paweljakubas]

Made changes as suggested, commits squashed. log, ppShowT are also used in wallet-new/integration/RandomStateWalk.hs

[KtorZ]

Okay, we gotta remove this file at some point :| ... But not part of this PR.

Thanks @paweljakubas waiting for the CI and merging if everything's okay.

[KtorZ]

Integration tests now fixed. Good job 👍