Fix flaky vreplication tests: correct logic that checks for workflow state in test helper

[rohit-nayak-ps]

Description

The current check for a workflow to reach a state (typically Running) was only checking for the first stream while parsing the json result of a workflow status check. This causes flakiness when there are multiple streams and the first one has reached Running but others are, say, Copying.

This PR fixes the logic to indeed iterate over all streams.

The flakiness was introduced by #17441 in v22, so no need to backport.

Related Issue(s)

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

[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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.68%. Comparing base (aabf1c9) to head (aed783e).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #17498   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.68%   67.68%           
=======================================
  Files        1584     1584           
  Lines      254466   254466           
=======================================
+ Hits       172235   172244    +9     
+ Misses      82231    82222    -9     

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

[mattlord]

Have you used https://gjson.dev with sample outputs to be sure that this is different? I thought that this would get all streams, but maybe not:

streams := gjson.Get(output, "workflows.0.shard_streams.*.streams")
streams.ForEach(func(streamId, stream gjson.Result) bool { // For each stream

Just a note that there's no need to backport this PR as the code you're modifying here is new from this recent PR: #17441

[mattlord]

OK, I confirmed that workflows.0.shard_streams.*.streams only returns 1 stream. Thanks!

[rohit-nayak-ps]

Yeah, I had tested the json parsing locally and that is how I figured out the problem and the fix. The gjson document is quite confusing with regard to wildcard filtering!

[mattlord]

Thanks, @rohit-nayak-ps !

[mattlord]

OK, I confirmed that workflows.0.shard_streams.*.streams only returns 1 stream. Thanks!