feat: rewrite e2e test(route-with-valid-remote-addr-test) with ginkgo

[Jaycean]

Please answer these questions before submitting a pull request

• Why submit this pull request?

• Bugfix

• New feature provided

• Improve performance

• Backport patches

• Related issues
  Feat: Rewrite all E2E tests using the Ginkgo #1500

---

New feature or improvement

• Rewrite e2e test(route-with-valid-remote) with ginkgo

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1560 (81a54a4) into master (9130e09) will decrease coverage by 1.06%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1560      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   70.18%   69.12%   -1.07%     
==========================================
  Files         130       49      -81     
  Lines        5340     3164    -2176     
  Branches      549        0     -549     
==========================================
- Hits         3748     2187    -1561     
+ Misses       1344      729     -615     
  Partials      248      248              

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend-e2e-test	55.68% <ø> (ø)
backend-e2e-test-ginkgo	39.91% <ø> (+0.31%)	⬆️
backend-unit-test	51.68% <ø> (ø)
frontend-e2e-test	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
web/src/pages/Plugin/PluginMarket.tsx
web/src/pages/Plugin/service.ts
web/src/pages/Service/Create.tsx
web/src/components/ActionBar/ActionBar.tsx
web/src/libs/iconfont.js
web/src/global.tsx
web/src/pages/SSL/components/Step1/index.tsx
web/src/pages/Route/List.tsx
...ages/Route/components/DebugViews/DebugDrawView.tsx
.../Route/components/DebugViews/DebugFormDataView.tsx
... and 71 more

---

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 9130e09...81a54a4. Read the comment docs.

[nic-chen]

Using table.Entry is better for us, and we could clearly see the comparison before and after the modification.

[Jaycean]

Using table.Entry is better for us, and we could clearly see the comparison before and after the modification.

Here also need to create route and replace upstream_ id，table.entry There is no way to create a new variable.

[nic-chen]

Using table.Entry is better for us, and we could clearly see the comparison before and after the modification.

Here also need to create route and replace upstream_ id，table.entry There is no way to create a new variable.

the old test cases are all table driven

[Jaycean]

Using table.Entry is better for us, and we could clearly see the comparison before and after the modification.

Here also need to create route and replace upstream_ id，table.entry There is no way to create a new variable.

the old test cases are all table driven

It's my problem. I'll revise it

[nic-chen]

merged. thanks a lot. @Jaycean