Use wait for ready on e2e test

[ferranbt]

Description

The majority of the e2e test must wait for the chain to start before any action can be performed. Currently, the tests use a utility function (WaitForBlock) to wait for a certain block to be created. However, it is inconsistent and up to the person writing the test to decide which block to wait for and how much time.

This PR introduces uses the WaitForReady function introduced in allow-list to standardize how much time to wait until we consider the cluster ready to perform any operation.

Note that I have not touched some tests from consensus_test.go that use long WaitForBlock numbers since the test involve having a long chain.

Changes include

• Bugfix (non-breaking change that solves an issue)
• Hotfix (change that solves an urgent issue, and requires immediate attention)
• New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• Breaking change (change that is not backwards-compatible and/or changes current functionality)

Breaking changes

Please complete this section if any breaking changes have been made, otherwise delete it

Checklist

• I have assigned this PR to myself
• I have added at least 1 reviewer
• I have added the relevant labels
• I have updated the official documentation
• I have added sufficient documentation in code

Testing

• I have tested this code with the official test suite
• I have tested this code manually

Manual tests

Please complete this section if you ran manual tests for this functionality, otherwise delete it

Documentation update

Please link the documentation update PR in this section if it's present, otherwise delete it

Additional comments

Please post additional comments in this section if you have them, otherwise delete it

[igorcrevar]

Approved. Just as a reminder (for me), in aa e2e test we will also have to call cluster.WaitForReady(t)

[Stefan-Ethernal]

LGTM.

Just curious, isn't it enough to wait just for a single block in the WaitForReady function?

[ferranbt]

Just curious, isn't it enough to wait just for a single block in the WaitForReady function?

Yup, I did not want to change any behavior from other tests since some tests wait for more than one block. But yes, in my opinion, one block might be enough.