VStreamer Unit Tests: framework to remove the need to specify serialized strings in row events for unit tests

[rohit-nayak-ps]

Description

This PR introduces a new framework to define the vstreamer unit test events in a structured manner, eliminating the need for specifying serialized row event strings directly.

This makes our tests less brittle by automating event generation for straightforward queries, thus reducing the need for extensive manual adjustments whenever row events change. While not all tests will benefit from this method, it's a significant step towards simplifying our testing process.

We plan to further refine this framework in future PRs, aiming for a balance to avoid unnecessary complexity. The framework is designed for generic applicability across multiple tests wherever feasible.

The tests currently modified are: TestNoBlob, TestSetAndEnum, TestFilteredVarBinary, TestFilteredInt, TestCellValuePadding, TestSetStatement, TestSetForeignKeyCheck, TestSavepoint, TestSavepointWithFilter.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (b539ce9) 67.47% compared to head (8c28eed) 67.47%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14903      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.47%   67.47%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1561     1561              
  Lines      193186   193185       -1     
==========================================
- Hits       130353   130351       -2     
- Misses      62833    62834       +1     

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

[mattlord]

Looks good overall! Just some concerns about modifying unrelated packages' logging behavior — I think that we should remove those changes.

Otherwise I only had suggestions on potential minor improvements. Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

[ajm188]

this is awesome, made a few minor comments and pending @mattlord's review comments i'm good to go.

thanks @rohit-nayak-ps !!

[mattlord]

LGTM! I think it's worth adding the noted comment about collationID 45, but also not necessary if there's nothing else you want to change (to avoid the CI overhead -- if so I could add that comment in another open PR after merging in main again).

Thanks!

[mattlord]

I think we should add a comment that 45 is utf8mb4_general_ci just to avoid others having to look it up in the future.

[mattlord]

Added here: 981dc0b