jasmine: update spec and suite

[UziTech]

Please fill in this template.

• Use a meaningful title for the pull request. Include the name of the package modified.
• Test the change in your own code. (Compile and run.)
• Add or edit tests to reflect the change.
• Follow the advice from the readme.
• Avoid common mistakes.
• Run npm test <package to test>.

If changing an existing definition:

• Provide a URL to documentation or source code which provides context for the suggested changes: https://github.com/jasmine/jasmine/blob/main/src/core/Spec.js https://github.com/jasmine/jasmine/blob/main/src/core/Suite.js
• If this PR brings the type definitions up to date with a new version of the JS library, update the version number in the header.

[UziTech]

TODO:

• Rebase on format jasmine with prettier #51997 after it is merged
• Add tests

[typescript-bot]

👋 Hi there! I’ve run some quick measurements against master and your PR. These metrics should help the humans reviewing this PR gauge whether it might negatively affect compile times or editor responsiveness for users who install these typings.

Let’s review the numbers, shall we?

Comparison details 📊

	master	#52004	diff
Batch compilation
Memory usage (MiB)	91.5	91.8	+0.3%
Type count	15062	15050	0%
Assignability cache size	5473	5473	0%
Language service
Samples taken	2887	2887	0%
Identifiers in tests	2887	2887	0%
getCompletionsAtPosition
Mean duration (ms)	370.4	372.6	+0.6%
Mean CV	8.6%	8.3%
Worst duration (ms)	592.9	536.7	-9.5%
Worst identifier	onload	callThrough
getQuickInfoAtPosition
Mean duration (ms)	371.1	373.9	+0.8%
Mean CV	8.9%	8.5%
Worst duration (ms)	549.5	566.1	+3.0%
Worst identifier	and	toHaveBeenCalledWith

It looks like nothing changed too much. I won’t post performance data again unless it gets worse.

[typescript-bot]

Updated numbers for you here from d5189d1.

These typings are for a version of jasmine that doesn’t yet exist on master, so I’ve compared them with v3.6.

Comparison details 📊

	3.6@master	3.7 in #52004	diff
Batch compilation
Memory usage (MiB)	90.2	94.6	+5.0%
Type count	15186	15653	+3%
Assignability cache size	5418	5582	+3%
Language service
Samples taken	2887	3291	+14%
Identifiers in tests	2887	3291	+14%
getCompletionsAtPosition
Mean duration (ms)	446.4	368.8	-17.4%
Mean CV	6.8%	8.0%
Worst duration (ms)	721.6	526.0	-27.1% 🌟
Worst identifier	badness	MAX_PRETTY_PRINT_DEPTH
getQuickInfoAtPosition
Mean duration (ms)	449.7	369.3	-17.9%
Mean CV	7.1%	8.0%
Worst duration (ms)	635.3	573.2	-9.8%
Worst identifier	objectContaining	it
System information
Node version	v14.16.0	v14.16.1
CPU count	2	2
CPU speed	2.294 GHz	2.095 GHz
CPU model	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v4 @ 2.30GHz	Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8171M CPU @ 2.60GHz
CPU Architecture	x64	x64
Memory	6.8 GiB	6.8 GiB
Platform	linux	linux
Release	4.15.0-1111-azure	4.15.0-1113-azure

First off, note that the system varied slightly between these two runs, so you’ll have to take these measurements with a grain of salt.

Wow, it looks like all the big movers moved in the right direction! Way to go! 🌟 I won’t post performance data again unless it gets worse.

[typescript-bot]

@UziTech Thank you for submitting this PR!

This is a live comment which I will keep updated.

1 package in this PR

• jasmine — on npm, on unpkg
  • owner-approval: @chivesrs

Code Reviews

Because you edited one package and updated the tests (👏), I can help you merge this PR once someone else signs off on it.

Status

• ✅ No merge conflicts
• ✅ Continuous integration tests have passed
• ✅ Most recent commit is approved by type definition owners or DT maintainers

All of the items on the list are green. To merge, you need to post a comment including the string "Ready to merge" to bring in your changes.

---

Diagnostic Information: What the bot saw about this PR

{
  "type": "info",
  "now": "-",
  "pr_number": 52004,
  "author": "UziTech",
  "headCommitOid": "e9c711edc71d080f0749dcb08cc83b918ab22cf0",
  "lastPushDate": "2021-05-10T15:22:58.000Z",
  "lastActivityDate": "2021-05-11T01:45:57.000Z",
  "maintainerBlessed": "Waiting for Code Reviews",
  "mergeOfferDate": "2021-05-10T23:38:55.000Z",
  "mergeRequestDate": "2021-05-11T01:45:57.000Z",
  "mergeRequestUser": "UziTech",
  "hasMergeConflict": false,
  "isFirstContribution": false,
  "tooManyFiles": false,
  "popularityLevel": "Critical",
  "pkgInfo": [
    {
      "name": "jasmine",
      "kind": "edit",
      "files": [
        {
          "path": "types/jasmine/index.d.ts",
          "kind": "definition"
        },
        {
          "path": "types/jasmine/jasmine-tests.ts",
          "kind": "test"
        }
      ],
      "owners": [
        "borisyankov",
        "theodorejb",
        "davidparsson",
        "gmoothart",
        "lukas-zech-software",
        "Engineer2B",
        "cyungmann",
        "Roaders",
        "devoto13",
        "fdim",
        "kolodny",
        "stephenfarrar",
        "djungowski",
        "chivesrs",
        "kirjs",
        "ienzam"
      ],
      "addedOwners": [],
      "deletedOwners": [],
      "popularityLevel": "Critical"
    }
  ],
  "reviews": [
    {
      "type": "approved",
      "reviewer": "chivesrs",
      "date": "2021-05-10T18:04:03.000Z",
      "isMaintainer": false
    },
    {
      "type": "stale",
      "reviewer": "sgravrock",
      "date": "2021-05-10T14:46:12.000Z",
      "abbrOid": "8be00c9"
    }
  ],
  "ciResult": "pass"
}

[typescript-bot]

🔔 @borisyankov @theodorejb @davidparsson @gmoothart @lukas-zech-software @Engineer2B @cyungmann @Roaders @devoto13 @FDIM @kolodny @stephenfarrar @djungowski @chivesrs @kirjs @ienzam — please review this PR in the next few days. Be sure to explicitly select Approve or Request Changes in the GitHub UI so I know what's going on.

[typescript-bot]

@sgravrock Thank you for reviewing this PR! The author has pushed new commits since your last review. Could you take another look and submit a fresh review?

[typescript-bot]

Updated numbers for you here from 9747135.

These typings are for a version of jasmine that doesn’t yet exist on master, so I’ve compared them with v3.6.

Comparison details 📊

	3.6@master	3.7 in #52004	diff
Batch compilation
Memory usage (MiB)	90.2	94.5	+4.8%
Type count	15186	15659	+3%
Assignability cache size	5418	5581	+3%
Language service
Samples taken	2887	3309	+15%
Identifiers in tests	2887	3309	+15%
getCompletionsAtPosition
Mean duration (ms)	446.4	429.3	-3.8%
Mean CV	6.8%	6.4%
Worst duration (ms)	721.6	761.4	+5.5%
Worst identifier	badness	foo
getQuickInfoAtPosition
Mean duration (ms)	449.7	431.0	-4.1%
Mean CV	7.1%	6.5%
Worst duration (ms)	635.3	628.3	-1.1%
Worst identifier	objectContaining	resolveTo
System information
Node version	v14.16.0	v14.16.1
CPU count	2	2
CPU speed	2.294 GHz	2.294 GHz
CPU model	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v4 @ 2.30GHz	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v4 @ 2.30GHz
CPU Architecture	x64	x64
Memory	6.8 GiB	6.8 GiB
Platform	linux	linux
Release	4.15.0-1111-azure	4.15.0-1113-azure

First off, note that the system varied slightly between these two runs, so you’ll have to take these measurements with a grain of salt.

It looks like nothing changed too much. I won’t post performance data again unless it gets worse.

[UziTech]

Ready to merge

[typescript-bot]

I just published @types/jasmine@3.7.2 to npm.

[StanislavKharchenko]

Hello!
Could you please share more info regarding removal of interfaces like CustomReporterResult, SuiteInfo, etc?
Is somewhere changelog or documenation on this?

[devoto13]

@StanislavKharchenko I believe they were renamed and slightly changed to more correctly describe the shape of objects passed to the reporter hooks (https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/pull/52004/files#diff-344efb0ef17abfa10b5fd8c8152d7e2250795f7bf199d26d00bcd5e5f3f80495L894). If you use them as part of hooks it should be a matter of renaming the imports (or removing them altogether - as parameter types should be inferred automatically). Or do you have another use case for these interfaces?

[StanislavKharchenko]

@devoto13
We're using our custom reporters which inherit base hooks "jasmineStarted", "specStarted" etc and have default parameters with specified arguments and its types. Like:

public jasmineStarted(suiteInfo: jasmine.SuiteInfo): void {
    super.jasmineStarted(suiteInfo);
    //Our own iimplementation
}

And we will have compilation error since interface "SuiteInfo" doesn't exist with type jasmine.
So, we need to make changes in accordance with last interface naming.

[devoto13]

I see.

@UziTech Maybe we should also export these interfaces under old names as deprecated to ease the migration?
Properties seem to be backward compatible, so it should be pretty simple to do. E.g.

/** @deprecated use JasmineStartedInfo instead */
type SuiteInfo = JasmineStartedInfo;

/** @deprecated use SuiteResult or SpecResult instead */
type CustomReporterResult = SuiteResult & SpecResult;

/** @deprecated use JasmineStartedInfo instead */
type RunDetails = JasmineDoneInfo;

[coyoteecd]

@UziTech @sgravrock I ended up here after doing an update of @types/jasmine, which now gives me a bunch of compile errors because of the renamed interfaces (I am using jasmine together with jasmine-spec-reporter package, and that package is now broken because of the rename).

That deprecation notice would've been great.