Run bpf_conformance using bpf_conformance/tests

[Alan-Jowett]

The first part of the fix for #163.

This change runs both the tests in ubpf repo and the tests in https://github.com/Alan-Jowett/bpf_conformance.

Signed-off-by: Alan Jowett alanjo@microsoft.com

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+1.0%) to 81.634% when pulling b1b3237 on Alan-Jowett:issue163 into 5c4cb90 on iovisor:main.

[matt-gretton-dann]

Approved. Although I note that there seem to be fewer external tests than internal ones. But this PR isn't about moving completely to the external test framework.

[Alan-Jowett]

Approved. Although I note that there seem to be fewer external tests than internal ones. But this PR isn't about moving completely to the external test framework.

Yes, the bpf_conformance tests don't contain negative tests. The goal is to merge negative tests from this repo + conformance tests from bpf_conformance during the build step to create a single set of tests that can be run that covers both scenarios.

The issue is that the negative tests are very specific to the BPF implementation, so it doesn't make sense to have them in the bpf_conformance repo. On the other hand, they do have value as they test failure paths.

One challenge is that I added support for labels in the assembly in bpf_conformance, but the old python based tests in this repo don't support it.

So we can either:

1. Retire the python tests.
2. Update them to support labels.