feat: rewrite e2e test(route_with_uri_uris_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_uri_uris_test with )ginkgo

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1561 (d871880) into master (9130e09) will increase coverage by 3.05%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1561      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.18%   73.24%   +3.05%     
==========================================
  Files         130       86      -44     
  Lines        5340     2321    -3019     
  Branches      549      583      +34     
==========================================
- Hits         3748     1700    -2048     
+ Misses       1344      621     -723     
+ Partials      248        0     -248     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend-e2e-test	?
backend-e2e-test-ginkgo	?
backend-unit-test	?
frontend-e2e-test	73.24% <ø> (+1.50%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
web/src/pages/Route/constants.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
web/src/pages/Route/components/Step1/MetaView.tsx	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
api/internal/handler/service/service.go
api/internal/handler/data_loader/route_export.go
api/internal/core/store/query.go
api/internal/core/storage/etcd.go
api/internal/filter/request_id.go
api/internal/handler/route/route.go
api/internal/handler/consumer/consumer.go
api/internal/handler/global_rule/global_rule.go
... and 57 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...d871880. Read the comment docs.

[nic-chen]

I think using table.Entry is better for us

[Jaycean]

I think using table.Entry is better for us

Yes, but creating route requires replacing upstream_id
table.entry There is no way to create a new variable.

[nic-chen]

I think using table.Entry is better for us

Yes, but creating route requires replacing upstream_id
table.entry There is no way to create a new variable.

the old test cases are all table driven...

[Jaycean]

I think using table.Entry is better for us

Yes, but creating route requires replacing 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 very much. @Jaycean