test: add vitest as test framework and port current tests

[pano9000]

Hi,

this PR aims to introduce vitest as test framework for the project – replacing the "previous selfmade test runner" and "jasmine".

See discussion here for more details
https://github.com/orgs/TriliumNext/discussions/925

Additional bonus:
We now have test coverage reports, by using npm run test-coverage

[eliandoran]

@pano9000 , kind reminder that you have write rights on the repo. You can push directly on a branch on TriliumNext/Notes instead of on your fork.
This will also make it easier for me to checkout the branches without having to use the GitHub API.

[eliandoran]

Good job.

Two tests are failing on my side, on Windows, but it's a pretty good start.

[pano9000]

Good job.

Two tests are failing on my side, on Windows, but it's a pretty good start.

I wonder: which ones are failing?

[eliandoran]

@pano9000 , since the last PRs were merged, only one of them is failing:

 FAIL  spec-es6/data_dir.spec.ts > data_dir.ts unit tests > #getPlatformAppDataDir() > w/ win32 and no APPDATA set it should return 'null'      
AssertionError: expected false to be truthy

- Expected
+ Received

- true
+ false

 ❯ spec-es6/data_dir.spec.ts:84:32
     82|                 const actual = getPlatformAppDataDir(...value);
     83|                 const result = isExpected(actual);
     84|                 expect(result).toBeTruthy();
       |                                ^
     85|             });
     86|         });

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯[1/1]⎯


 Test Files  1 failed | 12 passed | 1 skipped (14)
      Tests  1 failed | 133 passed | 8 skipped | 5 todo (147)
   Start at  17:05:37
   Duration  7.79s (transform 15.34s, setup 0ms, collect 44.70s, tests 179ms, environment 3ms, prepare 6.10s)

The tests for the directories appear a bit complicated, especially with the isExpected. Why not expect(result).toBe(expected)?

[pano9000]

that was mainly, because those tests were written with the mini_test test runner and without mocks, so I had to do some tiny trickery, to avoid duplicating the test function and able to use the forEach loop here.

Now that we have the mocks -> I've simplified it a bit for you ;-)

Regarding the failing test: that is interesting – will need to check on a Windows machine some time