Move router test utils into their own module

[valentinewallace]

Used in #1724 to test onion message pathfinding

[tnull]

Generally looks good, but it could get a bit confusing that there are now two test_utils that are even both referenced in router.rs. Maybe we could solve this for the time being by removing the use statements and always using the full routing::test_utils/util::test_utils prefix to make it explicit?

[valentinewallace]

Generally looks good, but it could get a bit confusing that there are now two test_utils that are even both referenced in router.rs. Maybe we could solve this for the time being by removing the use statements and always using the full routing::test_utils/util::test_utils prefix to make it explicit?

Hmm I feel like that would add a lot of verbosity since both of those test util modules are used in a ton of places.

Do you think it would help if I modified the import to be: use util::test_utils as ln_test_utils; so that all the current e.g. test_utils::TestScorer would be ln_test_utils::TestScorer?

[TheBlueMatt]

I'm fine with any resolution to the module resolution.

[dunxen]

Makes sense and LGTM!

[tnull]

Do you think it would help if I modified the import to be: use util::test_utils as ln_test_utils; so that all the current e.g. test_utils::TestScorer would be ln_test_utils::TestScorer?

Yup, use util::test_utils as ln_test_utils; would def. do the trick. No hard requirement though, feel free to leave it out if you think it gets too verbose, moving some to bench_utils already helped.

Also, feel free to squash.

[valentinewallace]

Yup, use util::test_utils as ln_test_utils; would def. do the trick. No hard requirement though, feel free to leave it out if you think it gets too verbose, moving some to bench_utils already helped.

Also, feel free to squash.

Sg, I went ahead with that. I kinda prefer to keep the first big commit as a "pure code move" (modulo imports/exposing stuff as pub(super)) so I kept the commits separate

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 90.70% // Head: 90.82% // Increases project coverage by +0.12% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (2f19b64) compared to base (d698898).
Patch coverage: 97.08% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head 2f19b64 differs from pull request most recent head 95a4173. Consider uploading reports for the commit 95a4173 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1731      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.70%   90.82%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          86       87       +1     
  Lines       46679    48356    +1677     
  Branches    46679    48356    +1677     
==========================================
+ Hits        42338    43920    +1582     
- Misses       4341     4436      +95     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lightning/src/routing/gossip.rs	91.44% <ø> (ø)
lightning/src/routing/router.rs	91.62% <95.00%> (-0.45%)	⬇️
lightning/src/routing/test_utils.rs	97.93% <97.93%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs	96.88% <0.00%> (-0.11%)	⬇️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs	95.63% <0.00%> (+1.14%)	⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	87.85% <0.00%> (+2.82%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[valentinewallace]

I don't think that CI failure is related to the PR 🤔

[dunxen]

I don't think that CI failure is related to the PR 🤔

Yeah seems some no-std dependency broke the MSRV. (Assuming it's the same issue I have on one PR)