test: Add dynamic allocation port for ganache, fixtures and test dapp

[vinistevam]

Description

This PR addresses an issue encountered when increasing the number of workers to 3 in the CI pipeline. The problem arose because, when increasing the number of jest workers, Detox creates new emulators in the same VM. However, existing fixtures, Ganache, and the test Dapp were not equipped to dynamically manage port allocation, causing test failures due to port conflicts between workers. These failures were particularly noticeable in confirmation tests, as they utilised Ganache, the test Dapp, and different fixtures for each test.

To resolve this issue, this PR introduces a dynamic port allocation mechanism that is deterministic and relies on process.pid instead of JEST_WORKER_ID because the worker id is different in the emulator but always 1 outside where servers are spun up. This approach ensures that the number of ports is different between the workers, eliminating port clashes and enabling smooth test execution in multi-worker environments.

Included all the confirmation tests in the smoke pattern (removed).

Manual testing steps

No functional change in the code.

E2E Pipeline

The build average time is 17m.

Before
https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/53f3a798-1302-4f91-89f0-c1ca724bee6e

After
without confirmations tests
https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/6994eecb-bb23-4161-bdac-9a8605334b49

with confirmations tests
https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/cd363c8a-8f09-4dd0-b822-132488d68852

Related issues

_Fixes https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/1393

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
• I've clearly explained:
  • What problem this PR is solving.
  • How this problem was solved.
  • How reviewers can test my changes.
• I’ve indicated what issue this PR is linked to: Fixes #???
• I’ve included tests if applicable.
• I’ve documented any added code.
• I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines).
• I’ve properly set the pull request status:
  • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
  • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

• I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed).
• I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.

[github-actions]

CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes.

[socket-security]

New dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Packages	Version	New capabilities	Transitives	Size	Publisher
react-native-launch-arguments	4.0.1	None	+0	26.7 kB	iamolegga

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (46b493b) 34.59% compared to head (072a313) 34.59%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7356   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   34.59%   34.59%           
=======================================
  Files        1017     1017           
  Lines       27150    27150           
  Branches     2211     2211           
=======================================
  Hits         9393     9393           
  Misses      17268    17268           
  Partials      489      489           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[seaona]

LGTM! A couple of comments:

• I've created a ticket so we can link this PR to the issue https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/1393
• About Signature tests, I've created a separate branch for reorg those tests, in a similar fashion as we have on Extension. This hopefully helps reduce e2e time. I will loop back around that topic

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

0.0% Coverage
0.0% Duplication