e2e tests: use HaveKey() and HaveLen() when possible

[edsantiago]

I learned about HaveKey() and HaveLen(). We should use them wherever possible.

This is another multi-part PR, in small reviewable chunks.

• e2e tests: a little more minor cleanup
• Same as previous, for assertions other than Equal()
• Use BeEmpty() instead of len(x).To(Equal(0))
• Same thing, for BeNumerically("==", 0)
• Use HaveLen(x) instead of Expect(len(y)).To(Equal(x))
• Same thing, with BeNumerically("==", x)
• Manual fixes

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [edsantiago]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[edsantiago]

Sample output using the new HaveLen():

  Expected
      <[]string | len:6, cap:8>: [
          "REPOSITORY                         TAG         IMAGE ID      CREATED        SIZE        R/O",
          "quay.io/libpod/alpine_nginx        latest      7397e078c6d9  9 months ago   14.2 MB     true",
          "quay.io/libpod/redis               alpine      8835e6aeca99  13 months ago  32.3 MB     true",
          "quay.io/libpod/alpine              latest      961769676411  2 years ago    5.85 MB     true",
          "quay.io/libpod/alpine_healthcheck  latest      c1103abb47d6  2 years ago    10.4 MB     true",
          "quay.io/libpod/alpine_labels       latest      4fab981df737  3 years ago    4.68 MB     true",
      ]
  to have length 8

Compare to:

  Expected
      <int>: 6
  to equal
      <int>: 8

[mheon]

LGTM once things go green.

[edsantiago]

I need help here. (I could figure it out myself, but it'll be faster and more reliable for me to ask). The error is:

         Expected
               <map[string]string | len:2>: {
                   "io.buildah.version": "1.23.1",
                   "marge": "mom",
               }
           to have {key: value}
               <map[interface {}]interface {} | len:1>: {
                   <string>"homer": <string>"",
               }

The cause is this diff:

-               Expect(inspectData[0].Config.Labels["homer"]).To(Equal(""))
+               Expect(inspectData[0].Config.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("homer", ""))

My initial interpretation is: Go returns "" (empty string) when looking up a nonexistent key in a map. Is that correct? If so, should the replacement assertion be ...To(Not(HaveKey("homer")))?

[edsantiago]

Re-pushed on the assumption that my above comment is correct. Edit was to the first commit. I amended the commit message appropriately, to indicate manual muckery.

[rhatdan]

LGTM
@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL

[mheon]

Your assumption is correct, Ed

/lgtm