fix: make integrations tests pass

[Henrrypg]

This PR add some fixes to prompts and instructions for integrations tests in order to make AI pass them

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @Henrrypg!

This repository is currently maintained by @felipemontoya.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.36%. Comparing base (351abc2) to head (c5924f3).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #241   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.36%   95.36%           
=======================================
  Files          69       69           
  Lines        8088     8088           
  Branches      430      430           
=======================================
  Hits         7713     7713           
  Misses        281      281           
  Partials       94       94           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	95.36% <ø> (ø)

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

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[felipemontoya]

Instead of having the list here in the same block. I think the test would be stronger if blocks has many html type content pieces and the list is distributed in them.

[felipemontoya]

Do you think it would be possible to change the test to actually use the prompt version that we have and user for chat_with_context. That would mean doing some minor updates there, but at the same time, we are making the base prompt better

[Henrrypg]

/integration-test

[felipemontoya]

Thanks for all the good work @Henrrypg. I think in its current form the tests are testing real capabilites of different models that we use in actual profiles.

Now, having them not as Xpass, but actual passed tests and having found one more bug during this PR of improvement in testing I would say we are a lot safer with this.