Feat/aac testing boiler plate

[jferrant]

Need to remove duplication in TestPeer by having it hold a TestChainstate under the hood but wanted to open this sep as my attempt to do so had introduced some bug somewhere.

Closes #6523

[fdefelici]

Great start! this looks really promising!

I’ve left a few comments for discussion.

[Jiloc]

Good job with setup! I believe there are aspects we can refine further, but they will become clearer when we'll start creating more tests. For now they could be too premature. I am fine with going forwad with this as-is. We can refactor the specific aspects in future PRs

[fdefelici]

Good job with setup! I believe there are aspects we can refine further, but they will become clearer when we'll start creating more tests. For now they could be too premature. I am fine with going forwad with this as-is. We can refactor the specific aspects in future PRs

If your preference is to merge this PR as-is, I'm fine with that.

Just to recap a few open points we have that could be addressed in follow-up PRs:

• marf computation discussion: This is still in progress. I’m experimenting with different ways to compute the MARF, but haven’t achieved the expected result yet.
• Expected Failure matching discussion: There are a couple of proposals on the table. I could try implementing the approach I proposed, in a separate PR.

[Jiloc]

Good job with setup! I believe there are aspects we can refine further, but they will become clearer when we'll start creating more tests. For now they could be too premature. I am fine with going forwad with this as-is. We can refactor the specific aspects in future PRs

If your preference is to merge this PR as-is, I'm fine with that.

Just to recap a few open points we have that could be addressed in follow-up PRs:

• marf computation discussion: This is still in progress. I’m experimenting with different ways to compute the MARF, but haven’t achieved the expected result yet.
• Expected Failure matching discussion: There are a couple of proposals on the table. I could try implementing the approach I proposed, in a separate PR.

note that IF we'll go forward with jferrant#3 , the "Expected Failure matching" point will be automatically handled by it

[fdefelici]

note that IF we'll go forward with jferrant#3 , the "Expected Failure matching" point will be automatically handled by it

Well, it would be more correct say that if we are fine with the string match approach, it is already managed!

And in this case, if the intention is to (try to) trigger all kind of failure, probably we'll need at least to remap the OS related error that are dynamic due to the localization.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.15959% with 184 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.55%. Comparing base (5934517) to head (857c0f9).
⚠️ Report is 93 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/mod.rs	83.40%	120 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs	91.36%	52 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/chainstate/nakamoto/tests/node.rs	89.65%	6 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/net/tests/mod.rs	96.49%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6531      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    75.36%   80.55%   +5.18%     
===========================================
  Files          565      568       +3     
  Lines       345043   347203    +2160     
===========================================
+ Hits        260037   279679   +19642     
+ Misses       85006    67524   -17482     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
stackslib/src/chainstate/nakamoto/tests/node.rs	83.73% <89.65%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
stackslib/src/net/tests/mod.rs	97.02% <96.49%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs	91.36% <91.36%> (ø)
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/mod.rs	83.40% <83.40%> (ø)

... and 284 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5934517...857c0f9. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.