👷 change e2e implementation for workers

[mormubis]

Motivation

The initial implementation of Worker E2E tests was somewhat tied to our specific use case and will not scale if we need to test different scenarios within the Worker environment.

Changes

It introduces a version of withWorker that automatically sets up the logs inside the worker. We can also pass an implementation, similar to what we do with withLogs and withBody.

Test instructions

All e2e still passed.

Checklist

• Tested locally
• Tested on staging
• Added unit tests for this change.
• Added e2e/integration tests for this change.

[cit-pr-commenter]

Bundles Sizes Evolution

📦 Bundle Name	Base Size	Local Size	𝚫	𝚫%	Status
Rum	162.28 KiB	162.28 KiB	0 B	0.00%	✅
Rum Recorder	19.92 KiB	19.92 KiB	0 B	0.00%	✅
Rum Profiler	4.89 KiB	4.89 KiB	0 B	0.00%	✅
Logs	55.96 KiB	55.96 KiB	0 B	0.00%	✅
Flagging	944 B	944 B	0 B	0.00%	✅
Rum Slim	119.25 KiB	119.25 KiB	0 B	0.00%	✅
Worker	23.60 KiB	23.60 KiB	0 B	0.00%	✅

🚀 CPU Performance

Pending...

🧠 Memory Performance

Pending...

🔗 RealWorld

[datadog-official]

✅ Tests

🎉 All green!

❄️ No new flaky tests detected
🧪 All tests passed

🎯 Code Coverage
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Total Coverage: 92.68% (+0.01%)

View detailed report

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 35fd80d | Docs | Was this helpful? Give us feedback!}

[BeltranBulbarellaDD]

Wouldn't an interface be more readable?

[mormubis]

I could definitely transform it to a type/interface.

[BeltranBulbarellaDD]

Would it be possible to move this to the createTest? So that we do something like:
.withWorker({ isModule: true, handleMessageWith: 'logger' })
Similar to what we do in:

browser-sdk/test/e2e/scenario/browser-extensions/browserExtensions.scenario.ts

Line 22 in 35fd80d

.withExtension(createExtension(path.join(BASE_PATH, name)).withRum().withLogs())

[mormubis]

I think the idea is to avoid that scenario and be more generic, or that's what I understood from @bcaudan feedback.