fix(e2e): fix flakiness with minimal scenario

[jpraynaud]

Content

This PR includes a fix for the flakiness of the e2e test in minimal mode, where certificates could be sealed with an incomplete signer set.

The new protocol parameters are crafted to avoid having one signer reach the quorum alone which lead to the Certificate is not signed by expected number of signers: 1 < 2 error. The success rate witnessed on my local environment increased from 75% to 100% with the new protocol parameters.

Pre-submit checklist

• Branch
  • Commit sequence broadly makes sense
  • Key commits have useful messages
• PR
  • All check jobs of the CI have succeeded
  • Self-reviewed the diff
  • Useful pull request description
  • Reviewer requested

Issue(s)

Relates to #3452

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adjusts Mithril e2e “minimal” mode configuration to reduce CI flakiness caused by certificates being sealed with an incomplete signer set.

Changes:

• Tune ProtocolParameters.phi_f for AggregateSignatureType::Concatenation to improve stability in minimal-mode e2e runs.
• Bump mithril-end-to-end crate version to 0.5.11 (and update Cargo.lock accordingly).

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
mithril-test-lab/mithril-end-to-end/src/mithril/infrastructure.rs	Updates protocol parameters used when starting the e2e infrastructure with concatenation signatures.
mithril-test-lab/mithril-end-to-end/Cargo.toml	Bumps mithril-end-to-end version to 0.5.11.
Cargo.lock	Updates locked version for mithril-end-to-end to 0.5.11.

[github-actions]

Test Results

     5 files  ±0     209 suites  ±0   59m 37s ⏱️ - 4m 13s
 3 372 tests ±0   3 372 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
11 226 runs  ±0  11 226 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 4c27b8b. ± Comparison against base commit 8a608bf.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[Alenar]

LGTM, what about the stability of networks with more than two signers?

[jpraynaud]

LGTM, what about the stability of networks with more than two signers?

It's not possible to craft a single set of parameters that will fit all number of signers with the constraints we have today that they all have their signature used to create the multi-signature. The new parameters work for 2 signers but will likely not work for more. We probably need to relax the assumption that all signers need to sign all certificates and check that they all signed at least one certificate (as we have previously discussed).

[turmelclem]

LGTM 👍