Make jest-snapshot less jest/jasmine-specific

[suchipi]

WIP - DO NOT MERGE (yet)

Work in progress as per discussion in #1341. I still need to add some tests (around processSnapshot (aka the "raw matcher") and createSnapshotState), but wanted to get some feedback first.

• Adds three new named exports to jest-snapshot: processSnapshot, createSnapshotState, and patchJasmine
  • processSnapshot performs all the business logic of creating, updating, and comparing snapshots, then returns either {pass: true} or {pass: false, expected: any}.
  • createSnapshotState creates a SnapshotState object for a given file path
  • patchJasmine is the same function that was previously defined in index.js
• Removes the getSnapshotState export from jest-snapshot, which created a snapshot state and then patched jasmine with it.
• Updates jest-jasmine2 to use createSnapshotState and patchJasmine instead of getSnapshotState.

Edit 8/22/16: I changed the interface of processSnapshot a bit from my original PR, so I have updated the description to match.

[suchipi]

Sorry I haven't rebased this yet, I'll try to get to that sometime this week.

[codecov-io]

Current coverage is 63.31% (diff: 16.66%)

Merging #1413 into master will increase coverage by <.01%

@@             master      #1413   diff @@
==========================================
  Files            96         98     +2   
  Lines          3608       3617     +9   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches          0          0          
==========================================
+ Hits           2284       2290     +6   
- Misses         1324       1327     +3   
  Partials          0          0          

Powered by Codecov. Last update 081bdd5...78e2db7

[suchipi]

This is ready for review 😃

[turadg]

LGTM. I'm looking forward to this merged to use snapshots with plain Jasmine and https://github.com/turadg/lazyspec

[suchipi]

@cpojer Is there still interest in this effort? There are some conflicts with #1499 which seems to have more momentum than this PR. Can you advise?

[cpojer]

@suchipi yeah absolutely, we just had absolutely no time at all to think about this or review code. I'm sorry. We'll get back to this soon and are working on merging the snapshot feature into the new matchers and I'll take a look at your PR.

[suchipi]

No worries, I understand you guys are doing a lot right now. 👍

[cpojer]

Hey @suchipi,

I'm sorry I let this diff sit for an entire month. This is not ok and not our usual behavior. We were occupied with the Jest 15 release and @DmitriiAbramov took on the work to rewrite our snapshot implementation to work with Jest and also to work better with external frameworks. It goes a bit further than this diff here and lays the groundwork for future additions to snapshots. See #1721.

This means that your PR is no longer applicable to Jest. I apologize that we aren't going to merge your code even though you did all this work. I hope we don't lose you as a future contributor given that the work @DmitriiAbramov did was entirely inspired by the discussion you started. I hope to have more discussions with you on where to take the snapshot feature in the future. You are welcome to join us on discord (see facebook.github.io/jest/support.html )

[suchipi]

No worries; what is right is more important than who is right. I'm not offended :)

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.