chore: get tests running in CI

[dbjorge]

While I was looking at making a different contribution, I noticed that the repo's tests weren't in a running state. It looks like the tests were written prior to the project converting to "type": "module", but the tests were never updated to work with that. This PR:

• Replaces jenkins-mocha and nyc with mocha and c8 to re-enable debugging and code coverage
• Updates the tests to use ESM syntax instead of CJS syntax
• Updates how packages-test.js was using child_process.spawn to fix how it was trying to read stdout
• Updates test.ts cases that pin to the actual dependencies of the repo to account for the dependency updates
• Adds a GitHub Actions configuration to run lint + format + test checks on PRs

[Standard8]

@dbjorge I'm not the maintainer, but I was looking at this patch, and when I run npm ci locally and then npm test, I get the following output:

% npm test          

> license-checker-rseidelsohn@4.4.2 pretest
> npm run lint:fix


> license-checker-rseidelsohn@4.4.2 lint:fix
> npm run lint -- --fix


> license-checker-rseidelsohn@4.4.2 lint
> eslint --ext js . --fix


> license-checker-rseidelsohn@4.4.2 test
> mocha ./tests/*.js

✔ clarifications (0.279458ms)

 Exception during run: SyntaxError[ @/Users/mark/dev/license-checker-rseidelsohn/tests/test.js ]: Unexpected identifier 'assert'
    at compileSourceTextModule (node:internal/modules/esm/utils:338:16)
    at ModuleLoader.moduleStrategy (node:internal/modules/esm/translators:106:18)
    at #translate (node:internal/modules/esm/loader:470:12)
    at ModuleLoader.loadAndTranslate (node:internal/modules/esm/loader:517:27)
    at async ModuleJob._link (node:internal/modules/esm/module_job:115:19)

Any ideas? Could it be to do with a newer node version?

[dbjorge]

Could it be to do with a newer node version?

Maybe; I can't say without knowing what version you're trying to run against. The version I tested against is Node 18 (because it is the earliest version this library's package.json engines field indicates support for) - if you're trying to test against an older version, you should try using that instead.

[dbjorge]

@RSeidelsohn , do you anticipate being able to review this? If not I'll go ahead and close it to clean up my list of outstanding work.

[RSeidelsohn]

Hello @dbjorge ,

thanks a lot for your valuable contribution! Please give me more time to tackle this. I came back to actually maintaining the code base after months of inactivity and am currently in the middle of a bigger refactoring. After that, I'll look into your PR and will do my best checking it and resolving probably merge conflicts. Will send a ping when done!