tor-keymgr: Implemented test improvements

Replace string-based metadata in KeyMgr tests with a structured ItemMetadata type that properly tracks:

Item identifiers (coot, moorhen, etc.)

Generation source keystores

Retrieval source keystores

This change improves test assertions by making them more precise and self-documenting, eliminating the confusing string concatenation pattern previously used for tracking keystore operations.

Fixes #1888 (closed)

requested review from @gabi-250

added 1 commit

• 08aea5d2 - Edit mgr.rs

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 591a1c08 - Edit mgr.rs

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 105cbf49 - Edit mgr.rs

Compare with previous version

resolved all threads

changed the description

Hi, thank you for the MR!

Before I dig more into the implementation, I have a few high-level comments that need to be addressed:

• CI is failing right now: clippy seems unhappy, and the code is misformatted. Please fix the clippy warnings and the formatting issues
• I notice you modified the main body of the KeyMgr implementation. This surprised me, because the ticket is only about modifying the tests (and test Keystore implementation). You shouldn't need to modify anything outside of the mod test {} from mgr.rs. If you find issues with the main implementation and would like to fix them, please open a separate MR for those changes
• generated_in is set during insertion, whereas #1888 (closed) asks for it to be set in Keygen::generate. FWIW, the ticket is wrong here, because there's no way to "specify which keystore the item was generated in using Keygen::generate, if it was generated this way at all" -- my bad! Maybe we could just make it into a boolean instead?

added 22 commits

• 105cbf49...4179fd68 - 21 commits from branch tpo/core:main
• e45fde32 - Merge branch arti:main into main

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 3de6cd86 - Edit mgr.rs

Compare with previous version

Hi @gabi-250

I had previously strayed from the scope of #1888 (closed), but I’ve now made the necessary corrections, and the pipeline is passing. Let me know if everything looks good. I appreciate your guidance—thanks a lot!

mentioned in issue #1630 (closed)

I'll wait till this is merged, will then send a patch modifying the run_certificate_test macro just a bit.