Test: remove loop closure

[harshal-rembhotkar]

Description

This PR removes loop closure capture from test to improve test reliability and readability.

Related Issue(s)

Part of #15183

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

None

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[harshal-rembhotkar]

Hey @mattlord, @deepthi! could you take a look at this PR when you get a chance? Appreciate your feedback!

[mattlord]

Thanks, @harshal-rembhotkar ! What you did so far is indeed exactly what the issue was about. We should do it for all tests (unit and endtoend) in one PR though if possible.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.47%. Comparing base (22cf8b6) to head (daefb49).
Report is 30 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17844      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.95%   67.47%   -0.49%     
==========================================
  Files        1585     1592       +7     
  Lines      255162   258209    +3047     
==========================================
+ Hits       173408   174217     +809     
- Misses      81754    83992    +2238     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[harshal-rembhotkar]

Thanks @mattlord! Glad to hear that. To keep things manageable, I'd prefer to do this in separate PR. Let me know if that works for you!

[harshal-rembhotkar]

Hey @mattlord, could you please review and approve this PR when you get a chance?