New testsuite organization

Hello 👋

I’m following up here as suggested in this conversation.

Before the PR landed, we didn’t notice that a new testsuite folder structure was introduced.
As runtime developers, we now face a challenge: it’s much harder to implement proposals one at a time.

I’m looking for guidance on how to proceed and what to expect going forward.

In chicory, we generate unit tests based on .wast files.
Previously, we relied on the folder structure to include only the proposals implemented at each stage.
Now that everything is under wasm-3.0, we either need a way to separate files by proposal or provide at least a minimal implementation of all proposals opcodes upfront just to get parsing to pass.

I also noticed that in some cases (e.g. binary.wast and binary0.wast) files have been duplicated.
Would it be an acceptable middle ground to keep proposals separated at the file level and use more descriptive names, such as binary_eh.wast, to indicate which proposal they cover?

Thanks!

Start with the linked conversation in PR 129 and compare the wasm-3.0 folder structure with the duplicated binary.wast and binary0.wast files. Determine whether proposal-level separation or descriptive filenames is acceptable for Chicory’s .wast-based generation; done means documented guidance or an agreed testsuite organization change.