RCORE-2209: Loosen illegal additive schema change test assertions

[kmorkos]

What, How & Why?

The new FLX architecture changes some sematics around how MARKs are resolved, which changes the behavior of this test slightly - the invalid schema change is caught before the async open returns now. Loosening the assertions here a bit to support either scenario, but let me know if there's a better way to handle this!

☑️ ToDos

• 📝 Changelog update
• 🚦 Tests (or not relevant)
• C-API, if public C++ API changed
• bindgen/spec.yml, if public C++ API changed

[coveralls-official]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build kiro.morkos_3077

Details

• 2 of 3 (66.67%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• 101 unchanged lines in 13 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 91.004%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
test/object-store/sync/flx_sync.cpp	2	3	66.67%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
src/realm/query_expression.hpp	1	93.85%
src/realm/sync/network/websocket.cpp	1	71.79%
src/realm/sync/noinst/changeset_index.cpp	1	79.47%
test/object-store/sync/flx_sync.cpp	1	98.32%
test/test_dictionary.cpp	1	99.83%
src/realm/array_blobs_big.cpp	2	98.58%
src/realm/cluster.cpp	2	75.85%
src/realm/object-store/shared_realm.cpp	2	91.89%
src/realm/table.cpp	4	90.55%
test/object-store/util/sync/baas_admin_api.cpp	5	84.03%

Totals
Change from base Build 2512:	-0.03%
Covered Lines:	216375
Relevant Lines:	237764

---

💛 - Coveralls

[tgoyne]

I think that this test is actually exposing a minor bug in the client: we treat completing a client reset as reaching download completion (as we waited for download completion on the fresh realm), but fail to invoke the download completion callbacks. Since we send another MARK after the client reset completes we'll eventually invoke the callbacks as long as the device is still online, but it'll happen later than it should.

[tgoyne]

I believe #7921 should make this test pass with QBSv2 and make things work more consistently.

[kmorkos]

I believe #7921 should make this test pass with QBSv2 and make things work more consistently.

Ah interesting, I'll kick off a patch against that branch.

UPDATE: confirming that the qbsv2 variant passes against your branch, will close out this PR. Good catch!