Cleanup tests

[caseydavenport]

Description

Had a couple of hours on a plane so thought I'd make some improvements here.

PR turned out quite a bit longer than I had hoped... but I think it has some good stuff in it.

• Split out tests which require a datastore into an "fv" target, so its easier to run a "fast" subset when developing.
• Standardize on Ginkgo - there were a few tests not using it.
• Fixup a number of suites which didn't have logging configured properly.
• Fix some copy/paste errors I spotted where report files had the same name across suites.

make ut now takes about 20 seconds on my machine.
make fv still takes > 5min.

make test runs both ut and fv.

Todos

• Tests
• Documentation
• Release note

Release Note

None required

[fasaxc]

SGTM. Looks like you've got a CI failure though.

Are you sure you want to standardise on Ginkgo? I've been allowing go test tests to go in and I think we've worked out that they're compatible. I'd like to use more go test tests over time; ginkgo has too steep a learning curve. OTOH, it'a lot of work to got from ginkgo to go test everywhere :-(

[caseydavenport]

Are you sure you want to standardise on Ginkgo? I've been allowing go test tests to go in and I think we've worked out that they're compatible. I'd like to use more go test tests over time; ginkgo has too steep a learning curve. OTOH, it'a lot of work to got from ginkgo to go test everywhere :-(

It seems to be that we've already standardized on Ginkgo, based on the number of tests we have written in it. I think it's valuable to use a single framework - not against making an official switch off of Ginkgo, but for now I think it's our default, and I'd rather not have two test frameworks where we could have one.