tests: decrease tests duration

[glevco]

Motivation

PR #753 introduced the new pause_after_exactly() miner simulator ability, and changed Feature Activation mining simulation tests to use it instead of the StopAfterNMinedBlocks, removing flakiness. Since the trigger was removed, the test running times were unnecessarily too long.

Acceptance Criteria

• Decrease running times of Feature Activation mining simulation tests
• Increase miner hash rate to make sure enough blocks are found

Checklist

• If you are requesting a merge into master, confirm this code is production-ready and can be included in future releases as soon as it gets merged

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.01% 🎉

Comparison is base (0f78923) 84.73% compared to head (a847f51) 84.74%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #756      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.73%   84.74%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         259      259              
  Lines       21912    21912              
  Branches     2963     2963              
==========================================
+ Hits        18567    18570       +3     
+ Misses       2698     2696       -2     
+ Partials      647      646       -1     

see 4 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[jansegre]

All tests are failing, is this ready for review?

[glevco]

All tests are failing, is this ready for review?

@jansegre yes, it's just my bad luck. Only one passed, actually, 3.11 on Windows. I'll rerun them anyway

[jansegre]

All tests are failing, is this ready for review?

@jansegre yes, it's just my bad luck. Only one passed, actually, 3.11 on Windows. I'll rerun them anyway

@glevco Is it possible that the tests that were changed here have become flaky? If they did I think it's better not to merge this changes.

[glevco]

@glevco Is it possible that the tests that were changed here have become flaky? If they did I think it's better not to merge this changes.

@jansegre I don't think so, I've looked at the failures and it looks like they're all either from the test_simulator or p2p. But let's wait for the rerun, to make sure