fix: support vitest 0.31.0

[GuillaumeRahbari]

Bug
closes #610

What

Support of vitest 0.31.0. See the issue #598

Why

Vitest made a Breaking Change that can be seen here
This PR did not allow to fully support vitest types

Notes

Housekeeping

• Unit tests
• Documentation is up to date
• No additional lint warnings
• Typescript definitions are added/updated where relevant

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 4b1a658

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
jest-extended	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #614 (7ee051c) into main (bdfb752) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 7ee051c differs from pull request most recent head 4b1a658. Consider uploading reports for the commit 4b1a658 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #614   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           73        73           
  Lines          674       674           
  Branches       290       290           
=========================================
  Hits           674       674           

[keeganwitt]

I think for the pipeline to pass, we'd need a dependency on vitest. I don't think we'd want to do that.

[LukeNotable]

How about supplying an empty type stub for vitest just for lint/typecheck?

[keeganwitt]

How about supplying an empty type stub for vitest just for lint/typecheck?

That's another option, but we'd then have to keep those signatures in sync with whatever changes Vitest makes (not sure how heavy a maintenance burden that is). Also, if those signatures change and we want to support multiple versions of Vitest, we'd have to export multiple type files for each version.

I'm willing to revisit this if we can find a reasonable path forward. In the mean time, I've merged #636.

[keeganwitt]

I'm going to close this PR for now, but please feel welcome to open another one if there are ideas for alternative approaches we should discuss.