Update tests and makefile to use Jest's "test" method

[matthewmorgan]

Jest is capable of using Jasmine's it and xit methods, but has its own test and xtest. I opened this issue to see what @exercism/ecmascripts think about switching from the Jasmine style to the Jest style for this track. Should we bother, or leave things as they are?

[joeljuca]

If we're going to switch, it makes sense to switch everything - including the current test codebase, to Jest. I mean, if we're going to support Jest's test/xtest, we should completely rip out Jasmine from the project and stick with Jest instead.

[matthewmorgan]

@joelwallis I agree with you completely. If we make the change, we should change it everywhere.

If no one has any objections, let's say:

Success Criteria:

• All specfiles are updated to replace it() with test(), and xit() with xtest().
• The Makefile is updated to reflect the same change.
• Update docs to change from it() to test(): https://github.com/exercism/ecmascript/edit/master/docs/EXERCISE_README_INSERT.md

Any other @exercism/ecmascripts care to weigh in?

[rchavarria]

If we switched to Jest, let's go Jest.

Beside specs and Makefile (to replace xtest with test). I think there is some occurrence in any doc about how to run tests, so docs should be checked too.

[matthewmorgan]

Ah good point 😁 That change will need to be made here: https://github.com/exercism/ecmascript/edit/master/docs/EXERCISE_README_INSERT.md

(I have updated the success criteria to include this change.)

[tejasbubane]

Good point @matthewmorgan 👍 All jest docs seem to be using test instead of it. Although it they seem aliases to me, it makes sense to switch to the jest-style.

Also jest seems to be moving away from jasmine in future versions (jestjs/jest#3668), although I don't think they will remove the it syntax in near future.