feat(jellyfish-testing): TestingWrapper as an abstraction layer

[surangap]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Tries a different approach to address #637 and #965 instead of #1035

Here we introduce TestingWrapper class to create a new layer of abstraction with the goal of being able to create a test /testGroup instance in a standardized manner.
creating a new layer seems to introduce the least amount of changes to existing use cases

Also adds the capability to add NonMasternode RegTestContainers to the tests. For this, NonMNTesting class has been introduced.

Again this is not the most perfect way to do this. But given the restrictions discussed here -> #1035 (comment), this way seems not ugly and at the same time serves the purpose.

Which issue(s) does this PR fixes?:

Fixes #637
Fixes #965

Additional comments?:

[codeclimate]

Code Climate has analyzed commit 26981fb and detected 8 issues on this pull request.

Here's the issue category breakdown:

Category	Count
Duplication	8

View more on Code Climate.

[netlify]

✔️ Deploy Preview for jellyfish-defi ready!

🔨 Explore the source changes: 26981fb

🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/jellyfish-defi/deploys/62170bb70d071400081bd332

😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-1093--jellyfish-defi.netlify.app

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1093 (26981fb) into main (ddc6b7f) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 76.31%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1093      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.69%   95.69%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         169      170       +1     
  Lines        5045     5113      +68     
  Branches      657      665       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits         4828     4893      +65     
- Misses        208      211       +3     
  Partials        9        9              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/jellyfish-testing/src/testing.ts	85.00% <65.38%> (-15.00%)	⬇️
packages/jellyfish-testing/src/testingwrapper.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
packages/jellyfish-address/src/p2wpkh.ts	67.64% <0.00%> (-32.36%)	⬇️
...ackages/jellyfish-api-core/src/category/account.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+4.47%)	⬆️
...ckages/jellyfish-api-core/src/category/poolpair.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+7.40%)	⬆️
...h-transaction-builder/src/txn/txn_builder_loans.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+12.12%)	⬆️
packages/jellyfish-address/src/p2pkh.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+33.33%)	⬆️
apps/legacy-api/src/controllers/MiscController.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+44.44%)	⬆️
apps/ocean-api/src/controllers/RawTxController.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+44.44%)	⬆️
packages/ocean-api-client/src/apis/RawTx.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+50.00%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ddc6b7f...26981fb. Read the comment docs.

[kodemon]

Wanted to start a quick discussion on naming since it will be harder to change later once this starts spreading into our testing structures.

From initial reading NonMN twists the tongue a little. Wondering if perhaps we want to create a proper name for a reg container that is not a MasterNode. I was thinking perhaps PartialNode?

And then since we are creating individual methods with expected outcomes perhaps the wrapper exposes.

createMasterNode and createPartialNode

It creates a little more uniformity in naming and I think more clear in their meaning, thoughts?