Add support to run unit tests in both Legacy and Savanna (Part 1)

[linh2931]

This PR (and subsequent ones) addresses those requirements:

• for any unit test which can be run in both Legacy and Savanna (majority of our unit tests are), we would like CICD to run it in both modes,
• for any tests which can be only run in Legacy or Savanna, place in a separate file,
• we want to easily turn off and remove Legacy testing some time in the future

This is the first PR which demonstrates how running both modes can be achieved. After it is approved, it will be applied to other tests.

Both BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE and BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE work. Either involves about the same amount of coding. If an original test already use tester chain; declaration, BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE requires fewer changes; if it uses a fixture, BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE can be used, but it requires adding this or T in front of methods.

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE( missing_sigs, T, validating_testers ) { try {
   T chain;
   chain.create_accounts( {"alice"_n} );

BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE( missing_sigs, T, validating_testers, T ) { try {
   this->create_accounts( {"alice"_n} );
   or
   T::create_accounts( {"alice"_n} );

Partially resolves #11

[linh2931]

chain.find on line 120 below causes compilation failure when BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE is used. We test Savanna for now.

[heifner]

Probably just need chain.template find<permission_object, by_owner>(boost::make_tuple(name("alice"), name("owner")));

[linh2931]

Thank! It worked.

[heifner]

Would be nice if there was a way to combine BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE and BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE so that TESTER chain; was not needed. I don't see a way to do that, but maybe @spoonincode might know a way.

[spoonincode]

I believe you can use the (sparsely documented?¹) BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE for example

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE( missing_sigs, T, validating_testers, T ) { try {

but there is a problem with dependent lookup so you're going to get stuck with doing either

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE( missing_sigs, T, validating_testers, T ) { try {
   this->create_accounts( {"alice"_n} );
   T::produce_block();

so it's not immediately clear to me if it's any better or not.

Footnotes

1. I only found it documented at the very bottom of this page https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_85_0/libs/test/doc/html/boost_test/tests_organization/decorators/explicit_decorator_declaration.html ↩

[linh2931]

Thanks for looking into this. Either way is fine. But I think chain.create_accounts is more readable. We can just keep it as is.

[ericpassmore]

Note:start
group: IF
category: TEST
summary: Run unit tests in both Legacy DPOS and Savanna Consensus Modes, part 1.
Note:end