test: fix test code improperly using/missing 'await'

[bradenmacdonald]

Description

I'm testing out oxlint on this repo to see what issues it finds, and it's finding lots :/

This PR fixes missing await statements in test code (which is a serious issue as it means some test code was being completely ignored), as well as incorrect await statements that were awaiting non-promises (which is not a big deal, but still bad practice).

This does not fix all the issues with missing await. There are a lot more, but I'm leaving ones that affect the non-test code for a separate PR, and ignoring some like calls to invalidateQueries, where I don't think it really matters if we await them or not.

Supporting information

Part of #2559

Private ref MNG-4763

Testing instructions

Just ensure tests are passing - there is no change to the MFE code outside of .test.x files.

Best Practices Checklist

We're trying to move away from some deprecated patterns in this codebase. Please
check if your PR meets these recommendations before asking for a review:

• Any new files are using TypeScript (.ts, .tsx).
• Deprecated propTypes, defaultProps, and injectIntl patterns are not used in any new or modified code.
• Tests should use the helpers in src/testUtils.tsx (specifically initializeMocks)
• Do not add new fields to the Redux state/store. Use React Context to share state among multiple components.
• Use React Query to load data from REST APIs. See any apiHooks.ts in this repo for examples.
• All new i18n messages in messages.ts files have a description for translators to use.
• Imports avoid using ../. To import from parent folders, use @src, e.g. import { initializeMocks } from '@src/testUtils'; instead of from '../../../../testUtils'

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @bradenmacdonald!

This repository is currently maintained by @bradenmacdonald.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.77%. Comparing base (c54c21e) to head (8764e80).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2560      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.74%   94.77%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1218     1218              
  Lines       27312    27330      +18     
  Branches     5989     6147     +158     
==========================================
+ Hits        25878    25901      +23     
+ Misses       1376     1358      -18     
- Partials       58       71      +13     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[bradenmacdonald]

@ChrisChV I found (and fixed) a lot of broken tests in this MFE. Can you please review?

[ChrisChV]

@bradenmacdonald Thanks for all this work! Looks good! I added some non-bloker nits 👍

• I tested this: I verified that the tests are green
• I read through the code and considered the security, stability and performance implications of the changes.
• Includes tests for bugfixes and/or features added.

[ChrisChV]

Nit: use screen here for getAllByRole, getByRole, rerender

[bradenmacdonald]

Sure. Though I don't think rerender is available any other way except how it's returned from render.