feat: aggsender e2e

[joanestebanr]

Description

• Split FEP and PP tests
• Add PP that check on aggsender database if there are 1 settle certificate

[vcastellm]

Blocking just to not forgot and merge with "jesteban/bump_aggsender"

[vcastellm]

Folder naming is inconsistent: fep vs pessimistic it should be pp + fep or pessimistic + full-execution or another option but consistent

Aside from that, to really be an e2e test, it should work the same way a user would do, querying the DB is something not realistic for the user. To check the certificates we should query the AggLayer using getCertificateHeader RPC
or getLatestKnownCertificateHeader that should be enough to know that the certificate was sent correctly.

[joanestebanr]

Folder naming is inconsistent: fep vs pessimistic it should be pp + fep or pessimistic + full-execution or another option but consistent

Ok, I wil change pessimistic to pp

Aside from that, to really be an e2e test, it should work the same way a user would do, querying the DB is something not realistic for the user. To check the certificates we should query the AggLayer using getCertificateHeader RPC or getLatestKnownCertificateHeader that should be enough to know that the certificate was sent correctly.

The test, as I explained, is a minium version and not ideal, for sure. The end-point required to retrieve a certificate is not released yet ( check issue) , so the best approach is check on DB

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[vcastellm]

The test, as I explained, is a minium version and not ideal, for sure. The end-point required to retrieve a certificate is not released yet ( check issue) , so the best approach is check on DB

I understand the situation, without those endpoints I agree checking the DB is the best way to check for certs, but the endpoints are released in 0.2.0-RC as I checked with the team, it should work with the image in this PR, the issue was closed a few mins ago, so let's not introduce more short-time debt here and work with what the agglayer have, no?