QE: tidier action chain features

[NamelessOne91]

What does this PR change?

Refactors the action chain related features in order to have each one of them use different names for different action chains.
Currently we reuse the same names over and over, both inside a single feature and between different features.
Switching to using different names allows to:

1. make the tests closer to what a customer will do
2. make debugging a little bit easier
3. possibly avoid testsuite failures due to sharing the same name for different chains - although that should be a non-issue, I have the impressions that if we schedule a bunch of commands, run and delete a chain, create another one with the same name, schedule more command (...) all in a short time span we might get into troubles as UI and internal serve state get out of sync.
   Also, currently some failures leave behind a chain with the same name of the one that is supposed to be freshly created, messing things up even more.
4. possibly allow for parallelization if we can do without the step that cleanups previous actions/schedules

GUI diff

No difference.

• DONE

Documentation

• No documentation needed: only internal and user invisible changes

• DONE

Test coverage

• Cucumber tests were modified

• DONE

Links

Issue(s):

• https://github.com/SUSE/spacewalk/issues/21170
• https://github.com/SUSE/spacewalk/issues/21171
• https://github.com/SUSE/spacewalk/issues/21172

Port(s):

• 4.3: https://github.com/SUSE/spacewalk/pull/26499

• 5.0:

• DONE

Changelogs

If you don't need a changelog check, please mark this checkbox:

• No changelog needed

If you uncheck the checkbox after the PR is created, you will need to re-run changelog_test (see below)

Re-run a test

If you need to re-run a test, please mark the related checkbox, it will be unchecked automatically once it has re-run:

• Re-run test "changelog_test"
• Re-run test "backend_unittests_pgsql"
• Re-run test "java_pgsql_tests"
• Re-run test "schema_migration_test_pgsql"
• Re-run test "susemanager_unittests"
• Re-run test "javascript_lint"
• Re-run test "spacecmd_unittests"

[github-actions]

👋 Hello! Thanks for contributing to our project.
Acceptance tests will take some time (aprox. 1h), please be patient ☕

You can see the progress at the end of this page and at https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/pull/9813/checks
Once tests finish, if they fail, you can check 👀 the cucumber report. See the link at the output of the action.
You can also check the artifacts section, which contains the logs at https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/pull/9813/checks.

If you are unsure the failing tests are related to your code, you can check the "reference jobs". These are jobs that run on a scheduled time with code from master. If they fail for the same reason as your build, it means the tests or the infrastructure are broken. If they do not fail, but yours do, it means it is related to your code.

Reference tests:

• https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/actions/workflows/acceptance_tests_secondary_parallel.yml?query=event%3Aschedule

• https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/actions/workflows/acceptance_tests_secondary.yml?query=event%3Aschedule

KNOWN ISSUES

Sometimes the build can fail when pulling new jar files from download.opensuse.org . This is a known limitation. Given this happens rarely, when it does, all you need to do is rerun the test. Sorry for the inconvenience.

For more tips on troubleshooting, see the troubleshooting guide.

Happy hacking!
⚠️ You should not merge if acceptance tests fail to pass. ⚠️

[Bischoff]

Nice one. There's something I don't like about the cucumber style, though.

Probably not your fault, it might come from someone else.

[Bischoff]

We should avoid exposing internals.

Our cucumber text should look like English, not like a programming language.

[NamelessOne91]

Agree.
I reused what was already there to see if the idea holds, but it would make sense to abstract these calls into another step.
Since I still have issues getting consistent results on the porting, I may have the time to refactor also this part.

[ktsamis]

I see no problem

[Bischoff]

ok, the function calls inside cucumber text were already there - please just ignore, we can refactor later