[PM-16917] Remove jest-extended dependency

[eliykat]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-16917

📔 Objective

@Hinton requested that we reconsider whether we need the jest-extended dependency.

We only use 2 matchers from it:

• tobeTrue() - trivially rewritten as expect().toBe(true).
• toIncludeAllPartialMembers - this checks that all the expected objects appear in the array using a partial match (e.g. objectContaining). This is useful but was easy enough to implement our own version of.

I have made these changes and removed jest-extended.

Unfortunately I did need to add jest-diff to present a readable error message if the custom matcher fails. However, this is already used by jest so it's not net new. Also, it's officially maintained by jest rather than the community. So overall I still think this is an improvement.

I made SM Team the owner of jest-diff for renovate purposes, just to keep it grouped with the existing configuration for jest packages.

📸 Screenshots

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 4645af35-0290-4ef1-bbed-50424331c568

New Issues (2)

Checkmarx found the following issues in this Pull Request

Severity	Issue	Source File / Package	Checkmarx Insight
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/apps/cli/src/commands/get.command.ts: 162	details Method getCipher at line 162 of /apps/cli/src/commands/get.command.ts sends user information outside the application. This may constitute a Privacy... Attack Vector
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/apps/cli/src/vault/models/cipher.response.ts: 34	details Method CipherResponse at line 34 of /apps/cli/src/vault/models/cipher.response.ts sends user information outside the application. This may constitu... Attack Vector

Fixed Issues (1)

Great job! The following issues were fixed in this Pull Request

Severity	Issue	Source File / Package
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/apps/cli/src/commands/get.command.ts: 331

[audreyality]

Looking good!

I'll approve once the failing tests and other reviewers' feedback have been addressed.

[audreyality]

👍🏻 TIL about expect.arrayContaining! I've been doing this the hard way. 😬

[audreyality]

👍🏻 Yo dawg! I put a test in your test so you could test your tests...

[eliykat]

Always! You test your code but who will test the tests??

[audreyality]

♻️ We have enough extensions to jest now that we might want to consider creating our own spec module (e.g. @bitwarden/jest-extensions) and updating jest's configurations to load it. (Not in this PR.)

[JimmyVo16]

This is essentially approved. I'll revisit it once the pipeline passes.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 34.13%. Comparing base (4c8565f) to head (01518ba).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #12798      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   34.14%   34.13%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2936     2936              
  Lines       90435    90435              
  Branches    16989    16989              
==========================================
- Hits        30876    30869       -7     
- Misses      57102    57109       +7     
  Partials     2457     2457              

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

[eliykat]

I've fixed the failing tests, there were a few places that were still using jest-extended matches that I missed. The change was mostly toHaveBeenCalledOnce() -> toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1). I'm not convinced the syntactic sugar is super useful there, if people want it we could write our own matcher for it fairly trivially, but I assume devs were just using what intellisense was suggesting.

I also had to tweak the matcher itself to not use a generic signature as this is not supported by the jest type package.

EDIT: I've also added more helpful error messages for the positive & negative (expect().not.toContainPartialObjects) cases.