feat(testrunner): async suite descriptions

[JoelEinbinder]

Alternative to #4721

Does this work?

[aslushnikov]

Does this work?

@JoelEinbinder This mangles test order, basically top-sorting them. Consider running this snippet: https://gist.github.com/aslushnikov/93a8fa25655063187c64767969c33ae8

You'd expect tests to run sequentially, but in fact they run as 1, 4, 2, 3.

The suggestion is very fascinating though, thank you for bringing it up! 👍

Comparing to #4721:

1. I don't like it because this is not how other test runners work. It makes test description asynchronous in a unique way - you don't know in which context and which point of time they are executed.
2. I don't like it because it's a conceptual change driven by a rare use case that affects all users.
3. I don't like it because debugging experience will suffer (can't step over spec definitions, stack traces are not nice)
4. I like it because it drops the need for top-level await for descriptions
5. I like it because it makes it harder to forget to await test suite, like in feat(testrunner): async suite descriptions #4721

So far I still lean towards #4721 primarily due to the ratio of simplicity / effort / importance, but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

P.S. There's an interesting discussion on async testsuites in jest jestjs/jest#2235

[aslushnikov]

So far I still lean towards #4721 primarily due to the ratio of simplicity / effort / importance, but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

...convinced otherwise, especially if the importance of this proves to be significant

[JoelEinbinder]

Does this work?

@JoelEinbinder This mangles test order, basically top-sorting them. Consider running this snippet: https://gist.github.com/aslushnikov/93a8fa25655063187c64767969c33ae8

You'd expect tests to run sequentially, but in fact they run as 1, 4, 2, 3.

My bad, I didn't realize that addSuite and addTest were separate.

[JoelEinbinder]

Closing, this was just a discussion prop.