[jest] Fix options type of jest.mocked() helper method

[mrazauskas]

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>.

Select one of these and delete the others:

If changing an existing definition:

• Provide a URL to documentation or source code which provides context for the suggested changes: documentation, Upgrade Guide

Summary

Jest 29 shipped with reworked implementation jest.mocked() helper method. The second argument is now a bag of options instead of a boolean. The API is documented and I think it makes sense to keep the implementation in @types/jest aligned. First, users can follow the documentation of Jest. Second, currently this is one of the reasons of the error described in jestjs/jest#13199.

Probably it is also a good idea to align the types in order to prevent similar issues in the future.

[typescript-bot]

@mrazauskas Thank you for submitting this PR!

This is a live comment which I will keep updated.

1 package in this PR

• jest — on npm, on unpkg
  • owner-approval: @r3nya, @domdomegg

Code Reviews

Because this is a widely-used package, a DT maintainer will need to review it before it can be merged.

You can test the changes of this PR in the Playground.

Status

• ✅ No merge conflicts
• ✅ Continuous integration tests have passed
• 🕐 Most recent commit is approved by a DT maintainer

Once every item on this list is checked, I'll ask you for permission to merge and publish the changes.

---

Diagnostic Information: What the bot saw about this PR

{
  "type": "info",
  "now": "-",
  "pr_number": 62259,
  "author": "mrazauskas",
  "headCommitOid": "784a9457299e4e87742711877f0ba60a4cd874b6",
  "mergeBaseOid": "ed7808e5c43d43ec53ae641cdd4bff6e14d0038e",
  "lastPushDate": "2022-09-14T18:43:19.000Z",
  "lastActivityDate": "2022-09-15T03:50:42.000Z",
  "hasMergeConflict": false,
  "isFirstContribution": false,
  "tooManyFiles": false,
  "hugeChange": false,
  "popularityLevel": "Critical",
  "pkgInfo": [
    {
      "name": "jest",
      "kind": "edit",
      "files": [
        {
          "path": "types/jest/index.d.ts",
          "kind": "definition"
        },
        {
          "path": "types/jest/jest-tests.ts",
          "kind": "test"
        }
      ],
      "owners": [
        "NoHomey",
        "jwbay",
        "asvetliakov",
        "alexjoverm",
        "epicallan",
        "ikatyang",
        "wsmd",
        "JamieMason",
        "douglasduteil",
        "ahnpnl",
        "UselessPickles",
        "r3nya",
        "hotell",
        "sebald",
        "andys8",
        "antoinebrault",
        "gstamac",
        "ExE-Boss",
        "quassnoi",
        "Belco90",
        "tonyhallett",
        "ycmjason",
        "pawfa",
        "regevbr",
        "gerkindev",
        "domdomegg"
      ],
      "addedOwners": [],
      "deletedOwners": [],
      "popularityLevel": "Critical"
    }
  ],
  "reviews": [
    {
      "type": "approved",
      "reviewer": "r3nya",
      "date": "2022-09-15T03:50:42.000Z",
      "isMaintainer": false
    },
    {
      "type": "approved",
      "reviewer": "domdomegg",
      "date": "2022-09-15T00:52:00.000Z",
      "isMaintainer": false
    }
  ],
  "mainBotCommentID": 1247157495,
  "ciResult": "pass"
}

[typescript-bot]

🔔 @NoHomey @jwbay @asvetliakov @alexjoverm @epicallan @ikatyang @wsmd @JamieMason @douglasduteil @ahnpnl @UselessPickles @r3nya @Hotell @sebald @andys8 @antoinebrault @gstamac @ExE-Boss @quassnoi @Belco90 @tonyhallett @ycmjason @pawfa @regevbr @GerkinDev @domdomegg — 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]

@mrazauskas The CI build failed! Please review the logs for more information.

Once you've pushed the fixes, the build will automatically re-run. Thanks!

Note: builds which are failing do not end up on the list of PRs for the DT maintainers to review.

[domdomegg]

LGTM, thanks 🙌