feat: rework test-harness for integration tests

[lima-limon-inc]

Tackles #981

This PR aims to remove some functionality from the compiler's testing crate and rely on miden-protocol's testing crate.
This includes the following changes:

• Removed the create_note_from_package function. This now relies on miden-protocol's NoteBuilder (which got Package support added into it in this PR).
• Removed the account_component_from_package function which was replaced by AccountComponent::from_package.
• Removed build_existing_basic_wallet_account_builder function in favor ofMockChainBuilder::add_existing_account_from_components which was also added in PR
• Removed NoteCreationConfig since it was superseded by NoteBuilder.

[lima-limon-inc]

@greenhat

Since #896 got closed, I re-opened this PR with your comments addressed. I have re-based it onto the newest changes in next.

[bitwalker]

So the problem with the removal of compile_rust_package is that by calling miden build, we're not actually testing the right version of the compiler (i.e. we're testing whatever the current midenup toolchain has installed). Using miden build is correct for other parts of the project, but not the compiler itself (where we need to test things based on the current source of the compiler).

I think we probably need to keep compile_rust_package unfortunately, or have it invoke cargo miden build instead (and ensure that it is looking in the right place for the cargo-miden binary - which our test suite currently does, but if responsibility for that moves somewhere else, we'll need a way to ensure the right binaries are being used).

Let me know if I've misunderstood something though!

[greenhat]

So the problem with the removal of compile_rust_package is that by calling miden build, we're not actually testing the right version of the compiler (i.e. we're testing whatever the current midenup toolchain has installed). Using miden build is correct for other parts of the project, but not the compiler itself (where we need to test things based on the current source of the compiler).

I think we probably need to keep compile_rust_package unfortunately, or have it invoke cargo miden build instead (and ensure that it is looking in the right place for the cargo-miden binary - which our test suite currently does, but if responsibility for that moves somewhere else, we'll need a way to ensure the right binaries are being used).

Let me know if I've misunderstood something though!

I think this PR description point was not updated. compile_rust_package is unchanged in this PR, meaning that it still calls the cargo-miden library. The miden build version is planned for the user projects and is discussed at 0xMiden/protocol#2611. The compiler test suite will continue using the current compile_rust_package calling cargo-miden library.

[greenhat]

Looking good! Nice work!

[lima-limon-inc]

So the problem with the removal of compile_rust_package is that by calling miden build, we're not actually testing the right version of the compiler (i.e. we're testing whatever the current midenup toolchain has installed). Using miden build is correct for other parts of the project, but not the compiler itself (where we need to test things based on the current source of the compiler).
I think we probably need to keep compile_rust_package unfortunately, or have it invoke cargo miden build instead (and ensure that it is looking in the right place for the cargo-miden binary - which our test suite currently does, but if responsibility for that moves somewhere else, we'll need a way to ensure the right binaries are being used).
Let me know if I've misunderstood something though!

I think this PR description point was not updated. compile_rust_package is unchanged in this PR, meaning that it still calls the cargo-miden library. The miden build version is planned for the user projects and is discussed at 0xMiden/protocol#2611. The compiler test suite will continue using the current compile_rust_package calling cargo-miden library.

@bitwalker Indeed, my mistake, the PR description contained items from a previous iteration of this PR. I have now updated the description with the latest changes.
Apologies for the confusion.

[lima-limon-inc]

Awesome 😊

I'll know move to #876