[Load Testing] gherkin/go implementation of test plan #1

[bryanchriswhite]

Summary

Implementing load test plan #1 using gherkin and go tests.

How to run:

• Make sure to have the appropriate gateways and relayminers in localnet_config.yaml (max number is 3 for each)
• Edit the relays_stress.feature to match the testing plan to execute

    And a rate of "1" relay requests per second is sent per application
    And the following initial actors are staked:
      | actor       | count |
      | gateway     | 1     |
      | application | 1     |
      | supplier    | 1     |
    And more actors are staked as follows:
      | actor       | actor inc rate | blocks per inc | max actors |
      | gateway     | 1              | 4              | 3          |
      | application | 2              | 4              | 5          |
      | supplier    | 1              | 4              | 3          |

Run the test with the following command:

go test -v -run TestLoadRelays ./load-testing/tests/...

Issue

• [Testing] Load Testing Relays Round #1 #20

Type of change

Select one or more:

• New feature, functionality or library
• Bug fix
• Code health or cleanup
• Documentation
• Other (specify)

Testing

• Unit Tests: make go_develop_and_test
• LocalNet E2E Tests: make test_e2e
• DevNet E2E Tests: Add the devnet-test-e2e label to the PR. THIS IS VERY EXPENSIVE, so only do it after all the reviews are complete.
• Documentation changes: make docusaurus_start

Sanity Checklist

• I have tested my changes using the available tooling
• I have commented my code
• I have performed a self-review of my own code; both comments & source code
• I create and referenced any new tickets, if applicable
• I have left TODOs throughout the codebase, if applicable

[Olshansk]

@bryanchriswhite I stopped reviewing at ~ line 800 in load-testing/tests/relays_stress_helpers_test.go but getting close.

Overall:

1. I understand your bias towards "DO Repeat Yourself" and aligned with the approach.
2. I think there's an opportunity to improve some var naming by making it more explicit so please take that into consideration as you go through my comments and/or do a self review.
3. This PR was pretty big, so if there's a comment that you believe is non-relevant, bias to just resolving it without an explanation than trying to figure it out.

Overall, it's really work through. Undoubted.

I'll pick this up again once all the comments are tended to.

[bryanchriswhite]

@Olshansk I think I covered everything except for a few comments:

I think it's safe to re-review already.

[bryanchriswhite]

@red-0ne 👀

[Olshansk]

Just a few more nits/asks, but otherwise g2g!

[Olshansk]

1. Understood, but going to use this as an opportunity to call out that we have to get better of reusing (updating / refactoring) each other's helpers rather than creating new ones every time.

[Olshansk]

[bryanchriswhite]

🚨 Do not delete this branch until #521 has changed its base to main 🚨