Remove --coverage + --watch workaround for the test command

[stipsan]

The workaround that removes --watch if --coverage is present in the test command will no longer be needed when jestjs/jest#5601 is merged and released.

# Do not merge this yet

I will update the PR once it's part of a stable jest release 😄

[bugzpodder]

@stipsan looks like jest@23 would have this change?

[stipsan]

@bugzpodder correct! Once this project is upgraded to jest 23 then this PR can be merged 😄

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs.

[netlify]

Deploy preview for gallant-davinci-8f9bd9 ready!

Built with commit 6497d66

https://deploy-preview-4176--gallant-davinci-8f9bd9.netlify.com

[stipsan]

@bugzpodder looks like CRA is on 23+ now? 🙂

[bugzpodder]

Yep, I think so!

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs.

[stipsan]

@bugzpodder then we could probably merge this 😄

[mrmckeb]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but when I ran this locally with test --coverage, I was still in watch mode - which would be somewhat of a breaking change for many users.

Can you give me a little more info about what this PR is trying to achieve?

[bugzpodder]

Sorry I was away and racked up 300 notifications from this repo :)
@mrmckeb, traditionally jest didn't work with --coverage and --watch in the same command until @stipsan fixed it: jestjs/jest#5601
But this wasn't introduced until jest@23 was released as part of CRA.

I tested this after jest@23 with --findRelatedTests and --coverage but it still broke occasionally so I had to disable this particular set of flags in our CI build. But I imagine this would happen rarely and I am ok with seeing this PR go through. I'll let you guys deal with the potential breaking change part.

[mrmckeb]

OK, so we've just merged in a change to allow no-watch, which I think will help with this #6285 - but it's definitely a breaking change, so I don't think it can be in a minor release.

@stipsan can you please rebase? We'll need to wait for #6278 to merge first.

[mrmckeb]

@stipsan, if you could rebase this one (there's a small conflict), we can merge this in for 3.0! Thanks again.