[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 – 71e74d59-6126-48df-8a7e-944a13a6e9d8

New Issues (3)

Checkmarx found the following issues in this Pull Request

Severity	Issue	Source File / Package	Checkmarx Insight
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/bitwarden_license/bit-web/src/app/tools/access-intelligence/org-at-risk-apps-dialog.component.html: 15	details Method org_at_risk_apps_dialog_component at line 15 of /bitwarden_license/bit-web/src/app/tools/access-intelligence/org-at-risk-apps-dialog.compone... Attack Vector
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/bitwarden_license/bit-web/src/app/tools/access-intelligence/all-applications.component.html: 97	details Method all_applications_component at line 97 of /bitwarden_license/bit-web/src/app/tools/access-intelligence/all-applications.component.html sends ... Attack Vector
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/bitwarden_license/bit-web/src/app/tools/access-intelligence/all-applications.component.html: 92	details Method all_applications_component at line 92 of /bitwarden_license/bit-web/src/app/tools/access-intelligence/all-applications.component.html sends ... Attack Vector

Fixed Issues (1)

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

Severity	Issue	Source File / Package
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/bitwarden_license/bit-web/src/app/tools/access-intelligence/org-at-risk-apps-dialog.component.html: 15

[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 34.28%. Comparing base (553d20f) to head (03f5066).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #12798   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   34.28%   34.28%           
=======================================
  Files        2935     2935           
  Lines       90229    90229           
  Branches    16943    16943           
=======================================
  Hits        30937    30937           
  Misses      56828    56828           
  Partials     2464     2464           

☔ 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.