chore: Refactor hapi tests to use hapiTest(...) instead of defaultHapiSpec(...) (Part 3)

[mhess-swl]

This PR continues the work for replacing defaultHapiSpec(...) with hapiTest(...). There should be no change to any test conditions.

Part of #16494

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.06% (target: -1.00%)	✅ ∅

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (1f6a473)	95473	64901	67.98%
Head commit (ac38769)	95656 (+183)	65079 (+178)	68.03% (+0.06%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#16698)	0	0	∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 64.27%. Comparing base (1f6a473) to head (ac38769).
Report is 24 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #16698      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     64.24%   64.27%   +0.03%     
- Complexity    20816    20882      +66     
============================================
  Files          2547     2549       +2     
  Lines         95710    95976     +266     
  Branches      10014    10043      +29     
============================================
+ Hits          61485    61687     +202     
- Misses        30618    30655      +37     
- Partials       3607     3634      +27     

see 103 files with indirect coverage changes

[mhess-swl]

The JRS failure looks like a network hiccup, unable to connect to the node (which seemed to succeed on the next attempt). The codacy errors are from the tests themselves, not from the changes I made.

[david-bakin-sl]

Taking a break. Got through meta/VersionInfoSpec. Will return later.

BTW - some comments made on tests later determined not to be "CI" tests but instead "JRS" tests. The ones about no @HapiTest annotation, you'll recognized them. So ignore that.

[david-bakin-sl]

Finished - LGTM!

[anthony-swirldslabs]

There's no any platform-owned code in this PR, and I don't have a sufficient expertise in these particular tests or area to validate the changes. I'm unsure why GitHub requested a review from platform teams here.

However, I skimmed through the diff and didn't notice anything suspicious in the code changes themselves. From Java perspective, they look good to me. So, approving.

Please do get an expert in this area to review the fix though.

[vtronkov]

Do you know why NodeOpsForUpgrade and other JRS tests were failing when hapiTest was used?

[mhess-swl]

Do you know why NodeOpsForUpgrade and other JRS tests were failing when hapiTest was used?

No idea. Using hapiTest shouldn't make any difference, yet I consistently see errors like this:

Caused by: io.netty.channel.AbstractChannel$AnnotatedConnectException: finishConnect(..) failed: Connection refused: localhost/127.0.0.1:50211
Caused by: java.net.ConnectException: finishConnect(..) failed: Connection refused

[Neeharika-Sompalli]

Do you know why NodeOpsForUpgrade and other JRS tests were failing when hapiTest was used?

These are run with SuiteRunner in JRS. We need to see if there is a connection. Need to validate these tests run still fine with SuiteRunner

[Neeharika-Sompalli]

LGTM! Thanks @mhess-swl