feat: changed container work dir from app to opt

[AlexKehayov]

Reviewer Notes

Replaced /app with /opt in the server's Docker and Helm chart configurations, as well as in the simulator's Dockerfile.
Tested local run and Docker run for the server and the simulator.
Tested K8 run for the server.

P.S.
I was unable to test the simulator in K8 due to difficulties connecting it to a running BN server, likely because of a misunderstanding of the configuration steps on my part. While the simulator runs fine in a Docker container and chart changes were not applied, it would still be good to be tested.

A thorough review of these changes, especially regarding the K8 integration, would be greatly appreciated.

Related Issue(s)

Closes #684

[AlexKehayov]

@jsync-swirlds @Nana-EC Thank you for the guidance and the reviews. Your help is much appreciated.

I am still trying to complete the testing of the Helm chart changes, but I am having some difficulties running the pods with local Docker images (containing the Dockerfile changes) instead of the ones from the registry. Perhaps someone more proficient with Kubernetes than I am could check whether the changes are valid or if a new issue related to the K8s part should be opened.

[jsync-swirlds]

@jsync-swirlds @Nana-EC Thank you for the guidance and the reviews. Your help is much appreciated.

I am still trying to complete the testing of the Helm chart changes, but I am having some difficulties running the pods with local Docker images (containing the Dockerfile changes) instead of the ones from the registry. Perhaps someone more proficient with Kubernetes than I am could check whether the changes are valid or if a new issue related to the K8s part should be opened.

Perhaps @AlfredoG87 could take a look once the 0.6.1 release is done.

[AlexKehayov]

I managed to do the K8 run with the updated server Dockerfile locally. Attaching the results below.

[Nana-EC]

A few PRs (this included) will likely be delayed and impacted by significant ongoing rewrites of the code base.
I'm blocking the PR for now just to avoid any unintended conflicts and to save you effort.

Once things are in the clear we can decide whether to rebase (if all changes are still applicable), pull some changes into a new PR (in a subset is still applicable) or if to close this underlying ticket if it's no longer applicable.

Thanks for your interest and contributions here, we'll be laying out more tickets that the community can look to to pick up and also exploring how to have community calls to improve the efficiency and sharing of information.

[Nana-EC]

Hey @AlexKehayov , feel free to rebase and update if you're able to now that the refactor to main has completed..
A lot has changed so it's possible the issue is no longer applicable or a larger or smaller effort than before.
Take your time and let us know what you find.

[AlexKehayov]

@Nana-EC, the conflicts are resolved :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main     #872   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     82.07%   82.07%           
  Complexity      858      858           
=========================================
  Files           102      102           
  Lines          3694     3694           
  Branches        380      380           
=========================================
  Hits           3032     3032           
  Misses          525      525           
  Partials        137      137           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...ode/blocks/files/historic/FilesHistoricConfig.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)	1.00 <0.00> (ø)
...ck/node/blocks/files/recent/FilesRecentConfig.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)	1.00 <0.00> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.