Fix failing tests in development-v6 branch

[PromoFaux]

What does this PR aim to accomplish?:

A change was introduced way back in June that presumably broke the tests. This got worked around by uploading the v6 binaries to the latest v5 release. No bueno.

The correct fix should have been to ensure that the devlopment-v6 branch of FTL is selected before trying to download it in tests (as we do with other tests).

We must ensure these tests get changed when development-v6 becomes development

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm the following:

1. I have read and understood the contributors guide, as well as this entire template. I understand which branch to base my commits and Pull Requests against.
2. I have commented my proposed changes within the code and I have tested my changes.
3. I am willing to help maintain this change if there are issues with it later.
4. It is compatible with the EUPL 1.2 license
5. I have squashed any insignificant commits. (git rebase)

---

• I have read the above and my PR is ready for review. Check this box to confirm

[yubiuser]

Should we test for all architectures we have FTL builds for?

[PromoFaux]

We probably should. Just FP'd over the last commit, in which I have reduced some code duplication for each arch's test.

Easier to maintain, and less places to remember to change development-v6 ->development in future

Edit: one more FP to change development-v6 to a declared FTL_BRANCH at the top of the file (which is then used in below tests where needed)

[yubiuser]

Wait, we don't check for i386.

And do we really need a check for both arm7l and arm7?

[PromoFaux]

Wait, we don't check for i386.

And do we really need a check for both arm7l and arm7?

i386 not as straightforward to test (see the code in the basic install that handles it)

I did look at adding a mock for the dpkg command earlier (uname is still x86_64) , but it didn't work. I can try again if it is important.

Really, aside from adding risc, I just used the same arch's that were already in the test. Can only assume i386 was left out on purpose before, too.

[yubiuser]

Maybe it's not important :)

[PromoFaux]

I have FP'd away the previous commit that added the i386 tests. On closer inspection, the only OS we support that even has a 386 flavour is debian, and even then - I doubt all that many people are using it. It is likely why the test was left out initially. Adding it to the new tests causes the Fedora/Centos tests to fail - we could code around that with some exceptions, but it's a lot of completixty for what probably is not a lot of gain

Changes implemented