Rename integrity_test to post_runtime_check

[wirednkod]

As noted in paritytech/substrate#10174, this hook has a very opaque name. Based on @kianenigma 's feedback, it has never been used as much as it should have been and there are experienced substrate developers who don't know it exists, or can't really tell what it is from the name. As a result there is a need to rename this to on_construct_runtime() post_runtime_check to be more aligned with the rest of the hooks.

Closes #258

[bkchr]

on_construct_runtime doesn't make more sense and also is not a great name.

[wirednkod]

on_construct_runtime doesn't make more sense and also is not a great name.

Naming is hard; Maybe construct_runtime_check? Your opinion or maybe a better name will matter more, since you are much more better aware on what would describe it better;

[kianenigma]

construct_runtime_test seems like the only hope at making it a somewhat intuitive name? it is a #[test] that is created upon construct_runtime, and is populated by pieces of code that you put in this hook.

@gupnik I wonder if you have ideas such that you can improve this, or make it more explicit in #1378?

[gupnik]

construct_runtime_test seems like the only hope at making it a somewhat intuitive name? it is a #[test] that is created upon construct_runtime, and is populated by pieces of code that you put in this hook.

@gupnik I wonder if you have ideas such that you can improve this, or make it more explicit in #1378?

For the name, I would propose post_runtime_check :)

To make it explicit after #1378, I can think of a syntax like so:

#[frame_support::construct_runtime_v2]
mod runtime {
    #[frame::pallets]
    pub struct AllPallets { ... }

     #[cfg(test)]
     pub fn post_runtime_check() {
            AllPallets::post_runtime_check();
     }
}

[svyatonik]

I think there's some confusion with bridges here - we have our own bridge integrity tests, which have nothing common with try-runtime and/or its hooks. They are mostly about some static assertions and/or checking constants/weights, related to bridges. I'd revert all changes to bridges subtree in this PR. If you want to rename our tests too, let's do that in a separate PR, though imo our name fits our usage :)

[bkchr]

They are mostly about some static assertions and/or checking constants/weights, related to bridges.

This was actually the initial idea of integrity_test and why I added it :P Checking the "integrity of the pallet in the runtime".

For the name, I would propose post_runtime_check :)

This is still more confusing than integrity_test. When is post_runtime? This doesn't give any context to the user...

[kianenigma]

maybe this was not a great idea then and no matter what we call it, it would be confusing to some 🤷

[bkchr]

So let's close this and the issue @kianenigma?

[wirednkod]

As discussed with @kianenigma this can close. Thank you @bkchr