fix: [M3-7725] - Unit tests button enabled assertions

[abailly-akamai]

Description 📝

Since we changed our buttons to feature an aria tag VS using a disabled attribute, both toBeEnabled & toBeDisabled can lead to false positives.

The reason is, the jest-dom assertion for toBeEnabled will look for a disabled attribute which isn't going to be present since we've altered our Button to feature an aria-disabled tag instead, leading to a false positive.

We've applied the fix for our e2e but the unit suite configuration needed to be handled as well.

Changes 🔄

• Add an interceptor for toBeEnabled & toBeDisabled assertions (for buttons only) that checks for aria-disabled tags as well

How to test 🧪

Reproduction steps

• An easy to reproduce the initial issue is to use an existing assertion such as the CloseAccountSetting component locally (on develop branch)
  • hardcode this value to true
  • run yarn test CloseAccountSetting.test.tsx - this assertion will still pass, which is a false positive

Verification steps

• Pull code locally and reproduce the steps above, make sure the assertion now fails
• run yarn test and Make sure the whole suite runs

As an Author I have considered 🤔

Check all that apply

• 👀 Doing a self review
• ❔ Our contribution guidelines
• 🤏 Splitting feature into small PRs
• ➕ Adding a changeset
• 🧪 Providing/Improving test coverage
• 🔐 Removing all sensitive information from the code and PR description
• 🚩 Using a feature flag to protect the release
• 👣 Providing comprehensive reproduction steps
• 📑 Providing or updating our documentation
• 🕛 Scheduling a pair reviewing session
• 📱 Providing mobile support
• ♿ Providing accessibility support

[github-actions]

Coverage Report: ✅
Base Coverage: 81.15%
Current Coverage: 81.15%

[jdamore-linode]

The PR that originally changed the button disable behavior (#10028) also included a bunch of unit test changes to check explicitly for aria-disabled -- should we reevaluate those unit test changes in light of this improvement?

[abailly-akamai]

@jdamore-linode I don't think it's too important? checking for aria-disabled is still a proper/valid assertion so i don't have any qualms leaving them there. I also don't think there's a performance impact.

This PR really just aims to future-proof new disabled assertions.

[jdamore-linode]

This is great, thanks @abailly-akamai!

[hana-linode]

The ImageAndPassword unit test failed when I ran yarn test but passed when I ran it by itself locally. Think it might have been a false alarm