Finish adapting unit tests to new API

[plafer]

Closes: #413

---

PR author checklist:

• Added changelog entry, using unclog.
• Added tests.
• Linked to GitHub issue.
• Updated code comments and documentation (e.g., docs/).
• Tagged one reviewer who will be the one responsible for shepherding this PR.

Reviewer checklist:

• Reviewed Files changed in the GitHub PR explorer.
• Manually tested (in case integration/unit/mock tests are absent).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 61.12% // Head: 60.04% // Decreases project coverage by -1.09% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ccd17e0) compared to base (ba0404e).
Patch coverage: 96.29% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #430      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   61.12%   60.04%   -1.09%     
==========================================
  Files         131      131              
  Lines       18114    18777     +663     
==========================================
+ Hits        11073    11275     +202     
- Misses       7041     7502     +461     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
crates/ibc/src/applications/transfer/context.rs	34.96% <0.00%> (-0.45%)	⬇️
crates/ibc/src/applications/transfer/error.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ibc/src/core/ics02_client/handler/create_client.rs	50.46% <ø> (-32.87%)	⬇️
...ibc/src/core/ics02_client/handler/update_client.rs	51.61% <ø> (-33.65%)	⬇️
...ore/ics04_channel/handler/write_acknowledgement.rs	0.00% <ø> (-83.64%)	⬇️
crates/ibc/src/mock/ics18_relayer/context.rs	65.00% <ø> (ø)
.../ibc/src/core/ics04_channel/handler/send_packet.rs	78.40% <33.33%> (-3.52%)	⬇️
...c/core/ics04_channel/handler/chan_close_confirm.rs	50.69% <75.00%> (-37.04%)	⬇️
.../src/core/ics04_channel/handler/chan_close_init.rs	50.80% <75.00%> (-28.54%)	⬇️
crates/ibc/src/test_utils.rs	67.50% <76.47%> (+0.19%)	⬆️
... and 46 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[Farhad-Shabani]

Thank you so much for this brave job! 🙌

I just noticed the assertion panic messages should to be adjusted for failure cases, I pointed this out in some places, but I’d appreciate it if you go back and take a look at them all.
Also, there are parts and codes that can be shrunk and optimized later. I was thinking we might set “testing improvements” as one of the main objectives for next quarters. WDYT?

[plafer]

Also, there are parts and codes that can be shrunk and optimized later. I was thinking we might set “testing improvements” as one of the main objectives for next quarters. WDYT?

Definitely.

I just noticed the assertion panic messages should to be adjusted for failure cases, I pointed this out in some places, but I’d appreciate it if you go back and take a look at them all.

There are many things to improve with our tests, and since we're about to do an overhaul, I don't see to value in having "perfect" error messages on imperfect tests. Instead of "fixing" something that will be removed and greatly improved in < 3 months, I would just leave as is for now an lump that in the #429 work.

[Farhad-Shabani]

There are many things to improve with our tests, and since we're about to do an overhaul, I don't see to value in having "perfect" error messages on imperfect tests. Instead of "fixing" something that will be removed and greatly improved in < 3 months, I would just leave as is for now an lump that in the #429 work.

That's fine with me. I just wanted to mention that the error messages are actually written to reflect successful scenarios, so if an assertion fails, the message will be displayed accordingly wrong. We should keep this in mind until then if a test fails during our development works.