Do not add module to instance settings if error in audit event object

[knolleary]

Fixes #2710

Description

If a node install fails, the audit log entry includes an 'error' property. We were not filtering on that, so we believed the install was successful and then adding the node to the instance settings.

This PR fixes that - adds the necessary filtering and adds test coverage for the audit-log handling in this area.

Checklist

• I have read the contribution guidelines
• Suitable unit/system level tests have been added and they pass

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2726 (39357cf) into main (e2811b1) will increase coverage by 34.94%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2726       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   39.52%   74.47%   +34.94%     
===========================================
  Files         540      232      -308     
  Lines       19130     9609     -9521     
  Branches     4523     2019     -2504     
===========================================
- Hits         7562     7156      -406     
+ Misses      11568     2453     -9115     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	74.47% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
frontend	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
forge/routes/logging/index.js	100.00% <100.00%> (+10.00%)	⬆️

... and 394 files with indirect coverage changes

[Steve-Mcl]

👍

[Steve-Mcl]

Odd

  FlowForge - Personal Access Tokens
    ✓ dialog has the correct default state (2180ms)
    ✓ can be added without an expiry (2224ms)
    ✓ can be added with an expiry date (2629ms)
    1) can be removed


  3 passing (13s)
  1 failing

  1) FlowForge - Personal Access Tokens
       can be removed:

      AssertionError: Timed out retrying after 4000ms: Too many elements found. Found '1', expected '-1'.
      + expected - actual

      -1
      +-1
      
      at Context.eval (webpack:///../test/e2e/frontend/cypress/tests/account/tokens.spec.js:98:60)

Wasnt expecting that 🤔

[Steve-Mcl]

I believe @Pezmc had the same UI test failure on an unrelated PR. I think running the test once more it passed.

Seeing that tice suggests a timing issue or something not properly interlocked?

[knolleary]

Yeah, this is an unrelated failure. Going to move ahead with this PR and capture the failure in an issue for looking at separately.