test: migrate to vitest

[merceyz]

Reduces the amount of configuration and dependencies needed to run the tests with almost no changes to the code.

Ref #229 (comment)

[aduh95]

I'm -0.5 on this, Vitest shares a lot of the same problems as Jest (you're not testing on Node.js, you're testing in Jest/Vitest runtime), I would rather like to see us move away from this and use node:test or Mocha instead.

[merceyz]

Indeed, nothing changes in that regard here, though to be fair most of the tests spawn Corepack in a node process so most of the work happens outside of the Jest/Vitest runtime.

This PR landing doesn't prevent migrating to node:test in the future, this PR could land and a follow-up PR could migrate to node:test.

[aduh95]

most of the tests spawn Corepack in a node process so most of the work happens outside of the Jest/Vitest runtime.

Yes that’s true, I did not consider that.

It seems there are some changes which are not directly related to switching to Vitest in this PR, right? Do you know why the nock files need to change?

[merceyz]

Most of them were renamed because of https://github.com/nodejs/corepack/pull/349/files#diff-b017716ca1490209cba877efb506d6b0cd9d724dda50f33a7384a88da852067fR23

- http utils fetchUrlStream rejects with error
+ tests/httpUtils.test.ts > http utils fetchUrlStream > rejects with error

The ones that actually changed deserialises to the same content.

[merceyz]

Tests fail with a module not found error without this patch.

@arcanis Clipanion could probably use the imports field for this.

[merceyz]

PR fixing this issue: arcanis/clipanion#155

[merceyz]

I would rather like to see us move away from this and use node:test or Mocha instead.

I tested using node:test (#357) but didn't finish it as, in my opinion, this PR provides a better experience.