[test] curvefs/mds: split large test cases into focused smaller ones

[ken90242]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: #2505

Problem Summary:
All the test cases in these two files are written into one test suite, and the names of the test cases have no meaningful information. Once the code is modified, it is difficult to change the corresponding unit tests accordingly.

What is changed and how it works?

What's Changed:

1. fs_manager_test.cpp

test_success_cleanup_after_fail_create_volume_fs_on_inode_error
test_success_cleanup_after_fail_create_volume_fs_on_dentry_error
test_success_create_volume_fs
test_success_create_s3_fs
test_success_monotonically_increasing_fsid_for_multiple_fs
test_fail_create_volume_fs_on_fail_partition_creation
test_fail_create_volume_fs_on_failed_root_node_creation
test_fail_create_s3_fs_on_failed_root_node_creation
test_fail_create_duplicate_s3_fs_with_different_fsname
test_success_get_s3_fsinfo_by_fsname
test_success_get_s3_fsinfo_by_fsid
test_success_get_s3_fsinfo_by_consistent_fsid_fsname
test_success_get_s3_fsinfo_by_inconsistent_fsid_fsname
test_success_mount_s3_fs
test_fail_repeated_mount_s3_fs
test_fail_delete_s3_fs_with_existing_mount_path
test_success_umount_s3_fs_with_mount_path
test_success_delete_s3_fs_without_mount_path
test_success_create_volume_fs_when_volume_fs_exists
test_success_get_volume_fsinfo_by_fsname
test_success_get_volume_fsinfo_by_fsid
test_success_get_volume_fsinfo_by_consistent_fsname_fsid
test_fail_mount_volume_fs_on_space_creation_error
test_success_mount_volume_fs
test_fail_repeated_mount_volume_fs
test_fail_umount_volume_fs_on_failed_uninit_space
test_success_umount_volume_fs_after_uninit
test_fail_umount_volume_fs_non_existent_mount_path
test_success_delete_volume_fs_after_umount_existing_mount_path
test_success_delete_volume_fs_without_mount
test_fail_repeated_delete_volume_fs
test_success_restore_session_after_client_timeout
test_success_background_thread_lifecycle
test_success_background_thread_delete_fs
test_success_refresh_session_with_outdated_partition_txid
test_success_refresh_session_with_up_to_date_partition_txid
test_fail_get_latest_txid_without_fsid
test_success_get_latest_txid_with_fsid

2. mds_service_test.cpp

test_fail_create_fs_missing_volume_for_volume_fstype
test_fail_create_fs_missing_s3_info_for_s3_fstype
test_fail_retrieve_fsinfo_non_existent_fsid
test_fail_create_fs_existing_volume_for_volume_fstype
test_fail_create_fs_hybrid_fstype
test_fail_get_fsinfo_missing_fsid_and_fsname
test_success_get_fsinfo_fsid_with_volume_fstype
test_success_get_fsinfo_fsid_with_s3_fstype
test_success_get_fsinfo_fsname_with_volume_fstype
test_success_get_fsinfo_fsname_with_s3_fstype
test_fail_get_fsinfo_non_existent_fsname
test_success_get_fsinfo_consistent_fsname_and_fsid
test_fail_get_fsinfo_inconsistent_fsname_and_fsid
test_success_mount_then_umount_on_single_path
test_success_delete_fs_no_mount_paths
test_fail_delete_fs_mount_paths_still_exist
test_fail_repeatedly_mount_fs_on_same_path
test_fail_repeatedly_umount_fs_on_same_path
test_success_refresh_sessions
test_success_delete_fs_after_umounting_all_paths

How it Works:
Those gigantic test cases were now divided into smaller and more focused ones.

Side effects(Breaking backward compatibility? Performance regression?):
None

Outcome

$ ./bazel-bin/curvefs/test/mds/curvefs_mds_test --gtest_filter=FSManagerTest*

$ ./bazel-bin/curvefs/test/mds/curvefs_mds_test --gtest_filter=MdsServiceTest*

Check List

• Relevant documentation/comments is changed or added
• I acknowledge that all my contributions will be made under the project's license

[ken90242]

cicheck

[ken90242]

@wuhongsong
@wu-hanqing
I have finished the refactoring for the test cases.
Kindly take a look at this PR at your convenience.

[ken90242]

@wu-hanqing
I have completed all the comments

[wu-hanqing]

cicheck

[ken90242]

cicheck

[ken90242]

cicheck

[ken90242]

@wu-hanqing
The ci test has passed. I will merge all the commits and run another ci test once you confirm this.

[ken90242]

btw, who should I ask to be the second reviewer?

[wu-hanqing]

btw, who should I ask to be the second reviewer?

I don't have any more questions, except squeeze 4 commits into 1.

[ken90242]

Hi @wuhongsong @Cyber-SiKu

Would you mind reviewing my work? Thanks

[ken90242]

cicheck

[ken90242]

cicheck

[ken90242]

cicheck

[wu-hanqing]

cicheck

[ken90242]

@SeanHai Could you please review my work when you get a chance? Thank you!