Jasmine types mismatch between vrotest and vropkg

[Indy-rbo]

Description

The package @types/jasmine (and jasmine itself) have a version mismatch between vropkg and vrotest.
While the jasmine package itself did not give me issues, the @types/jasmine does.

The following example should work, type wise.
It will work inside the editor and (most of the time) when running mvn clean package:

let mySpy: jasmine.SpyObj<MyService>;
beforeAll(() => {
  mySpy = spyOnAllFunctions(MyService.prototype)
})

But sometimes it generates the error:

error Type 'Spy' is not assignable to type 'SpyObj<MyService>'.

As you can see in the links below, when you search for spyOnAllFunctions the definitions don't match

3.3.9: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@types/jasmine/v/3.3.9?activeTab=code

declare function spyOnAllFunctions(object: object): jasmine.Spy;

3.10.3: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@types/jasmine/v/3.10.3?activeTab=code

declare function spyOnAllFunctions<T>(object: T, includeNonEnumerable?: boolean): jasmine.SpyObj<T>;

Steps to Reproduce

1. Create a test where you assign a variable that is defined as jasmine.SpyObj<MyService> with something from spyOnAllFunctions
2. Run mvn clean package
3. It sometimes(?) errors

Preconditions: Unsure

Expected behavior: To have it use the correct type definitions

Actual behavior: It (sometimes) uses the old type definitions, which then errors during type checking

Reproduces how often: Unsure, but haven't found a case where it reproduces 100%

Component/s: typescript/vrotest, typescript/vropkg

Affects Build/s: Up to 2.44.0

Related issues and PRs

#463
#332

Additional Context

Unsure if the jasmine package itself should also be upgraded, since vropkg uses ^3.3.1 and vrotest uses 4.5.0

[Michaelpalacce]

vropkg has nothing to do with running jasmine tests.

[Indy-rbo]

vropkg being an affected component was a guess based on what packages have references to the Jasmine types in this repo and it occurring when using mvn clean package. Sadly still haven't been able to find a good reproducible setup.

But I hope this issue will be resolved as a byproduct of #463