ENT-2044: Added acceptance test for IP-address classes

[larsewi]

Merge together with https://github.com/cfengine/enterprise/pull/772

[nickanderson]

Looks like missing include of default.cf.sub which adds machinery for leveraging test.description and methods for pass/fail tests based on classes.

[nickanderson]

We don't strictly require it, but I think it's nice to use the dcs library. It does a few things:

• Provides a default bundlesequence to run init, test, check if they are defined.
• Uses test.description variable in test output
• Provides methods for passing/failing tests based on common checks e.g. dcs_pass(test), dcs_fail(test), dcs_passif(class, test), etc ...

[larsewi]

core/tests/acceptance/README

Lines 96 to 100 in d508301

	However if the test is really simple you might want to skip including
	"default.cf.sub" in inputs. Then you should define your own
	bundlesequence, e.g. {"test","check"}. It's recommended to avoid
	including "default.cf.sub" when not needed, since the test will run much
	faster.

@nickanderson, from the README I got the impression that it should be avoided for small tests? 🤔

[larsewi]

But I guess the machinery for leveraging test.description makes it worth it anyways?

[nickanderson]

But I guess the machinery for leveraging test.description makes it worth it anyways?

I think it does. I believe it was Jimis who added that note. And it's mostly in relation to speeding up execution IIRC. Which is valid, and why I think it's OK to have it or not. But I pretty much always use dcs. up to you.

[olehermanse]

In addition to the speed argument, I like to not use the dcs stuff when the test is simple. Easier to run (just a policy file, no deps), easier to read / understand.

[larsewi]

I'll keep it as is. Because it was really simple to test on Windows. I just copied the file over and ran it directly.