Simon/test utils folder

[SimonRastikian]

Closes #216

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 56.27615% with 209 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 87.84%. Comparing base (8d7be3a) to head (56319ee).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/test_utils_impls/mpc_interface.rs	4.81%	178 Missing ⚠️
src/test_utils_impls/mockrng.rs	40.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
src/test_utils_impls/run_protocol.rs	87.50%	4 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
src/test_utils.rs	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/test_utils_impls/sign.rs	90.00%	2 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
src/ecdsa/robust_ecdsa/test.rs	50.00%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
src/ecdsa/ot_based_ecdsa/test.rs	66.66%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
src/test_utils_impls/dkg.rs	98.94%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #217      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.92%   87.84%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          41       48       +7     
  Lines        9046     9077      +31     
  Branches     9046     9077      +31     
==========================================
+ Hits         7954     7974      +20     
- Misses        645      656      +11     
  Partials      447      447              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[netrome]

Looks alright to me, but we should be much more mindful about introducing breaking changes. We need better versioning and changelog management to make sure we can communicate breaking changes better.

For this PR, please re-export any existing types you've moved in the top-level module and we should be fine.

[netrome]

If these are intended only for the MPC repository, why are they defined here and not in that repo?

Also this module seems to revolve around the TestGenerators struct, why not name it test_generators?

Finally, since these are used by the MPC repo it would be nice if we can re-export them from the test_utils module so that this refactor is not breaking the MPC repo.

[gilcu3]

These were functions that we decided recently to move from the MPC repo because they were purely testing functions for threshold signatures. The original thread for reference

[netrome]

Yeah they seem usable to have in this repo, but naturally this repo should not have a module called mpc_interface.

[SimonRastikian]

I agree with @netrome this is why I have been recently wondering whether it is going to be dealt with soon or not https://nearone.slack.com/archives/C07UW93JVQ8/p1762723559814599

[gilcu3]

I think this is also a needed change. The file should not be named mpc_interface, as these functions are purely test utils functions offered by this crate (albeit currently only used by the mpc node, that's why we still need some unification in the future)

[gilcu3]

Afaik this has the same problem as before. To be backwards compatible, you need to expose the same types and functions in the same location. If you change the name of the module, that's not the case. The functions/structs need to be re-exported in the same files test-utils.rs

[SimonRastikian]

Yes the location is still the same: see that there is still test_utils.rs file

[gilcu3]

I see, in that file you have:

pub use crate::test_utils_impls::*;
pub use mpc_interface::*;

so this looks like a hack? Why doing so instead of keeping the old folder name test_utils? Also I think only the previous public types needed to be exported.

[netrome]

I'm not following the distinction between test_utils_impls and test_utils. Any module suffixed _impls sounds like it should primarily contain trait implementations in my view.

Secondly we still have the mpc_interface module. Please rename it to something more appropriate, like test_generators.