core: stdcm: fix path / travelled path confusion on block availability

[eckter]

Well that was a massive bug considering how sneaky it is. It's in BlockAvailability (a class that's mocked in most tests), and Offset<Path> == Offset<TravelledPath> in most test cases.

InfraExplorerWithEnvelope.getSimulatedLength() returned a Length<Path>, when it should really be TravelledPath.

I'd add a unit test with stops in BlockAvailabilityTests, but that would massively conflict with the other pending PRs.

Fix some (most?) cases of #11121.

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.43%. Comparing base (5644ec8) to head (b4caa19).
Report is 2 commits behind head on dev.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              dev   #11210   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.42%   81.43%           
=======================================
  Files        1124     1124           
  Lines      113152   113153    +1     
  Branches      758      758           
=======================================
+ Hits        92139    92141    +2     
+ Misses      20958    20957    -1     
  Partials       55       55           

Flag	Coverage Δ
editoast	72.47% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
front	89.96% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
gateway	2.48% <ø> (ø)
osrdyne	8.00% <ø> (ø)
railjson_generator	87.58% <ø> (ø)
tests	88.82% <ø> (ø)

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

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Erashin]

Well that must have been fun to debug. Good job, this is huge!
For the test, I'm fine with merging this as is, putting said test in an issue and doing it once the other PRs are merged.

[bougue-pe]

Thanks for this bugfix!

Apart from the naming, I guess my first 2 comments can (should?) be tracked a sibling issues of #10595.
If agreeing on the usefulness of suggestions, I can create issues.

[bougue-pe]

🙏 If you have a unit test for the second commit's bug, it's nice to embed (we can consider that e2e tests are enough, I guess).