fix(jest-config): parse testEnvironmentOptions if received from CLI

[mrazauskas]

Resolves #11900

Summary

See #11900 (comment).

Test plan

I have added a unit test.

[SimenB]

thanks!

[SimenB]

Wait, this seems like a bug - it should be parsed (the example in #11900 isn't JSON (it's JS literal) so that would fail, but that's separate).

https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/8024306c365cdf8b17b2256c73f1f4c9f23f8f77/packages/jest-config/src/Defaults.ts#L67 is an object (and we use it as such internally: https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/8024306c365cdf8b17b2256c73f1f4c9f23f8f77/packages/jest-environment-jsdom/src/index.ts#L37

---

I do think an improved description saying JSON string is a good idea, but it should be parsed into an object before being passed to custom envs

[mrazauskas]

Ah.. That’s right.

I can fix this and also will add it to CLI docs for completeness.

[SimenB]

Awesome, thank you @mrazauskas!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #11902 (05f4239) into main (8024306) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #11902      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.73%   68.72%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         322      322              
  Lines       16582    16583       +1     
  Branches     4784     4785       +1     
==========================================
  Hits        11397    11397              
- Misses       5152     5153       +1     
  Partials       33       33              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/jest-config/src/setFromArgv.ts	86.11% <50.00%> (-2.47%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8024306...05f4239. Read the comment docs.

[mrazauskas]

@SimenB Perhaps it is not worth to include this option in the versioned CLI docs, because most probably the implementation is buggy. Or?

[SimenB]

@SimenB Perhaps it is not worth to include this option in the versioned CLI docs, because most probably the implementation is buggy. Or?

Agreed 👍

You can add it do 27.2 as I'll publish a patch with this 🙂

[SimenB]

thanks! just the one versioned docs change and this should be good to go 🙂

[SimenB]

I wonder if this should throw if it returns false... not for this PR anyways

[SimenB]

Thanks!

[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.