docs: ADR-009 to revamp testing framework

[rnbguy]

Part of #1109

Rendered

Description

---

• [ ] Add links to concrete implementations
• [ ] Check the title of ADR
• [ ] Format markdown file

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).

[Farhad-Shabani]

As a general note

While we're at it, it would be good to improve the namings, establish a clear convention, and describe this convention somewhere, for example, in the lib.rs of the ibc-testkit. We've discussed this before, but it's evident that we use Test*** in some places and Mock*** in others. I was thinking of something like this (Take it as a suggestion):

The traits and structs that allow users to introduce their artifacts/implementation can follow the Test*** pattern, as it is with the TestHost and TestBlock, and the object that implements these traits or derived from this struct can follow Mock***. Therefore e.g. :

• MockGenericContext<S, H> can be renamed to TestContext<S, H>

Perhaps would be more efficient to specify the generic H for the MockContext<H> too, as below:

• pub type MockContext = TestContext<MockStore, MockHost>;
• pub type TendermintContext = TestContext<MockStore, TendermintHost>;

@seanchen1991 would be great to have your opinion in this regard.

[seanchen1991]

@Farhad-Shabani I agree with your assessment that we should document the conventions and semantics of ibc-testkit post-refactor in the crate's root 👍

I also like your suggesting about aliasing the different TestContexts.

[rnbguy]

Agree with @Farhad-Shabani ! Let me make these changes on #1109 directly.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 66.38%. Comparing base (6e7172d) to head (cb8e706). Report is 4 commits behind head on feat/refactor-testkit.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## feat/refactor-testkit #1157 +/- ## ========================================================= - Coverage 66.38% 66.38% -0.01% ========================================================= Files 235 235 Lines 23367 23347 -20 ========================================================= - Hits 15512 15498 -14 + Misses 7855 7849 -6 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.