fix: auto acknowledge self events before ignoring

[WilliamBergamin]

Summary

Since #2283 event requests are no longer auto acknowledged in the processEvent function. This behavior was handed over to the autoAcknowledge middleware. This created a gap in the ignoreSelf middleware since the events reaching it were assumed to already be acknowledged. This PR aims to add auto acknowledge behavior into the ignoreSelf global middleware.

Requirements (place an x in each [ ])

• I've read and understood the Contributing Guidelines and have done my best effort to follow them.
• I've read and agree to the Code of Conduct.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.09%. Comparing base (2f25b21) to head (e44cac8).
Report is 3 commits behind head on autoack.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           autoack    #2329   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    91.08%   91.09%           
========================================
  Files           22       22           
  Lines         6116     6122    +6     
  Branches       655      655           
========================================
+ Hits          5571     5577    +6     
  Misses         540      540           
  Partials         5        5           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.

[misscoded]

Does this address the current non-acknowledged events in the Assistant class, or unrelated?

[WilliamBergamin]

@misscoded this should be unrelated

[filmaj]

I have a concern about the test utilities, which is likely a symptom of a deeper issue relating to TS union types.

[filmaj]

I don't think this is correct. Args here extends AnyMiddlewareArgs which is a union of different kinds of middleware args. Some of these middleware args contain ack and others do not, so in theory Args should be carrying the correct type, including the conditional presence of ack.

You may have to narrow the return type from this method appropriately to get the right kind of Args depending on the situation, which should in theory sometimes carry ack.

I assume the issue was asserting on ack in the test file you changed in this PR?

[zimeg]

👋 QQ: Is this branch safe to delete? Hoping to avoid a potential confusion in later housekeepings and chore 😅