test: only skip ssz_static tests associated to missing type

[nflaig]

Motivation

Motivation from #6776 to only skip ssz_static tests associated to missing type instead of all ssz_static tests.

Description

• add separate it-statement to assert that type is defined
• return instead of throwing an error if type is not defined

[ensi321]

Can you specify an error message in expect()? Currently it throws AssertionError: expected undefined not to be undefined which doesn't make too much sense unless we look at the name of the test.

Something like

expect(sszType, `SSZ type ${typeName} for fork ${fork} is not defined`).toBeDefined()

and

it(`${fork} - ${typeName} existence check`)

[nflaig]

Can you specify an error message in expect()?

This works but gives an eslint error

Expect takes most 1 argument eslint (vitest/valid-expect)

We have to use the custom function toEqualWithMessage in that case

[nflaig]

AssertionError: expected undefined not to be undefined which doesn't make too much sense unless we look at the name of the test.

Yes I totally agree with this but @nazarhussain has been pushing against having detailed assertion error messages so I kept it as is.

Right now if you wanna have a better assertion message you either have to

• use toBeWithMessage / toEqualWithMessage which is crossed out as it is marked deprecated
• or pass as 2nd param to expect and get an eslint error

We might wanna rethink this, imo it would be best if we override the vitest default toBe and toEqual to support the message as a 2nd param, and remove the custom toBeWithMessage and toEqualWithMessage

[matthewkeil]

I tend to agree with @nazarhussain on this. The spec test name should be descriptive enough to explain what is being asserted, and there should ideally be only one expect in each test case so that its clear which assertion is failing. I tend to feel that adding more messaging to the test case means that the naming or assertion is incorrect or confusing and should be refactored

[ensi321]

Maybe I am nitpicking or not used how vitest outputs logs, but when I debug I first look at the message in red, which in this case is not descriptive at all. I will then need to look at the unit test name, which is white and is prepended by file name and spec test name. On the other hand, this is good because when I see the red message, I know `deposit_requests_root` is missing right from the first glance

[wemeetagain]

lgtm