chore(sequencing): remove mock context from manager_test.rs

[guy-starkware]

I've removed the MockTestContext from manager_test.rs and instead mved it to depend on the mock context in test_utils.rs.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[guy-starkware]

• chore(consensus): remove irrelevant TODO items #2671
• chore(sequencing): remove ConsensusMessage and Proposal from proto #2559
• chore(sequencing): remove ConsensusMessage from context #2533
• fix(sequencing): make repropose use the proper channel #2532
• chore(sequencing): remove ConsensusMessage from simulation network #2528
• chore(sequencing): remove ConsensusMessage from stream_handler_test #2526
• chore(sequencing): remove ConsensusMessage from converter test #2525
• chore(sequencing): remove mock context from manager_test.rs #2524 👈 (View in Graphite)
• chore(sequencing): add specific print message for wrong tx type #2518
• chore(sequencing): replace BTreeMap with HashMap in StreamHandler #2517
• chore(sequencing): remove ProposalChunk #2512
• chore(sequencing): remove ProposalWrapper #2510
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 9.72%. Comparing base (e3165c4) to head (6d5e7bd).
Report is 817 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #2524       +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   40.10%   9.72%   -30.39%     
==========================================
  Files          26      87       +61     
  Lines        1895   10491     +8596     
  Branches     1895   10491     +8596     
==========================================
+ Hits          760    1020      +260     
- Misses       1100    9434     +8334     
- Partials       35      37        +2     

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

[asmaastarkware]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @matan-starkware)

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @guy-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/test_utils.rs line 24 at r2 (raw file):

    Init(ProposalInit),
    Fin(ProposalFin),
}

Do we actually need Fin to be part of this enum?

Code quote:

#[derive(Debug, PartialEq, Clone)]
pub enum TestProposalPart {
    Init(ProposalInit),
    Fin(ProposalFin),
}

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/test_utils.rs line 52 at r2 (raw file):

            _ => panic!("Invalid TestProposalPart conversion"),
        };
        <Vec<u8>>::try_from(init).expect("Invalid TestProposalPart conversion")

?

Suggestion:

        init.try_into().expect("Invalid TestProposalPart conversion")

[guy-starkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @matan-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/test_utils.rs line 24 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

Do we actually need Fin to be part of this enum?

I guess we don't :)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/test_utils.rs line 52 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

?

Done.