Support jest v30

[mjdavidson]

At the moment there is a peerDependency on jest v29, now that jest v30 is out it would be good for this package to support it

[ljharb]

PR is already up in #291.

[mjdavidson]

@ljharb awesome thanks for the update

[G-Rath]

@ljharb @mjdavidson this should be reopened since my work only meant that jest-runner-eslint itself works with Jest v30, but it still uses a version of create-jest-runner that does not support v30 so it doesn't work with strict peer dependencies.

Unfortunately create-jest-runner added official v30 support in its v1 while also dropping some Node versions so I think the path forwards are:

• do a new major of this runner
• support both 0.x and 1.x of create-jest-runner
• convince @SimenB to do a new 0.x version of create-jest-runner that supports v30

[ljharb]

is there a non-breaking way to allow either v0 and v1 of create-jest-runner?

("strict peer deps" are required for any dep graph to be correct, so that's a pretty important blocker)

[G-Rath]

From the pull request it looks like the only actual changes were:

• update a bunch of dev dependencies
• add v30 to the peer constraints for @jest/test-result and jest-runner
• drop support for Node <18.14.0
• update jest-worker dependency to v30 (which is why the Node versions were dropped)
• added some properties to lib/toTestResult

I'm pretty sure both v0.x and v1.x should just work w/ jest-runner-eslint, and I'm pretty sure I even tried than back when I was doing #291.

However, afaik there isn't any way to actually do that without an arguable breaking change as not all package managers install peer dependencies by default, and they always try to resolve the latest version regardless of factors like Node so if you change the direct dependency constraint to be 0 || 1, you could in theory break CIs

(I think the likelihood of that though is quite low, and it would be an okish thing to do in a minor - we did it ourselves in eslint-plugin-jest a while back for dealing w/ @typescript-eslint upgrades without issue)

[ljharb]

Let's do that here in a minor then, and after a baking period, we can do the major release you discussed.