Better documentation for setupTests.js when ejecting

[dannycalleri]

When running npm run eject before creating src/setupTests.js, the resulting package.json file, won't contain any entry for it - and this is correct in my opinion, since otherwise Jest will crash - but it's useful to have it documented and avoid pointless waste of time.

[facebook-github-bot]

Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community. We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have you on file. In order for us to review and merge your code, please sign up at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need the corporate CLA signed.

If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at cla@fb.com. Thanks!

[facebook-github-bot]

Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Facebook open source project. Thanks!

[Timer]

Documented via 1c8a7f3.

Thanks!

[gaearon]

Ooh this is actually better than what I did. I didn’t look at the PR because it wasn’t linked to the issue.

[dannycalleri]

Hi @gaearon , thank you!
I actually mentioned you in one of the issues, even if I didn't referenced it from here, sorry.
Here's my comment on the issue mentioning you: #643 (comment)

[gaearon]

Ah, I see! Sorry, we generally don't read closed issues because there's just way too much information (it took me 10 hours yesterday to go through just the open ones).

[gaearon]

@dannycalleri I like your wording, do you think you could update this to find a middle ground between what you and what I did? Whatever makes most sense to you (I'm fine with deleting my wording, although I'd like to leave the mention in more than one place).

[dannycalleri]

Sure @gaearon , I already modified the README with another note in the same place as yours but using an anchor to the other, just to avoid repeating the code sample.
Let me know what you think, thanks

[gaearon]

(Please rebase on top of master)

[dannycalleri]

Sorry @gaearon , I instinctively merged master in seeing the conflict, then I read your comment. How do you want to proceed?
Probably squashing with interactive rebasing on master will work, I don't know what you prefer.
Let me know if you need any more help

[gaearon]

This looks good, thanks

[dannycalleri]

Thank you @gaearon . Would love to help with other issues, can you point me to some other stuff?

[gaearon]

It's a bit tricky because the repo is in a messy state: there's a bunch of different things we want to do and we haven't had time to address them properly. Keep tabs on #3672, we'll likely mention some next TODOs there.