optimize: Remove hardcoded port configuration in test classes

[WangzJi]

…ynamic port allocation

• I have registered the PR changes.

Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did

Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?

Fixes: #7440

Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)?

Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it

Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 60.20%. Comparing base (cbc6ac5) to head (856ba8c).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                2.x    #7460      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     60.21%   60.20%   -0.02%     
  Complexity      658      658              
============================================
  Files          1281     1281              
  Lines         48282    48282              
  Branches       5676     5676              
============================================
- Hits          29075    29066       -9     
- Misses        16602    16610       +8     
- Partials       2605     2606       +1     

see 6 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[WangzJi]

@YongGoose
PTAL.

[YongGoose]

I’ve been a bit delayed in reviewing due to a busy schedule lately — sorry about that.

Overall, the code looks good and I didn’t notice any major issues.
However, I do have one question.

Last time we talked, we mentioned that mismatched port configurations were causing connection issues during test execution. Could I ask how you addressed that?

Also, regarding the CodeCov link in the issue — it might be good to recover the reduced test coverage.
Do you think that could be resolved through the current test refactoring?

[WangzJi]

Thanks for the follow-up!

Regarding the port configuration issue — I initially suspected it was caused by port conflicts, since the CodeCov link in the issue pointed to the server and core modules, and I did observe RM connection errors in the CI logs. However, I later found that other PRs did not show the same behavior as #7435 in their CodeCov reports, which suggests the issue is likely unrelated to the previous port mismatch we discussed.

After reviewing Codecov’s documentation on unexpected coverage changes, it seems more likely that this is caused by how indirect changes are reported, rather than a bug in the code itself.

If you have any suggestions on refining the test setup, I’d be happy to incorporate them!

[YongGoose]

Thanks for the follow-up!

Regarding the port configuration issue — I initially suspected it was caused by port conflicts, since the CodeCov link in the issue pointed to the server and core modules, and I did observe RM connection errors in the CI logs. However, I later found that other PRs did not show the same behavior as #7435 in their CodeCov reports, which suggests the issue is likely unrelated to the previous port mismatch we discussed.

After reviewing Codecov’s documentation on unexpected coverage changes, it seems more likely that this is caused by how indirect changes are reported, rather than a bug in the code itself.

If you have any suggestions on refining the test setup, I’d be happy to incorporate them!

I think I’ll need to take a closer look at the logs myself.
It might take a bit of time 😅