Migrate more type tests to TSTyche

[mrazauskas]

Following up #1988

This PR migrates more type tests to TSTyche.

[mrazauskas]

Notice that few assertions were disabled by adding a space: // $ ExpectType instead of // $ExpectType. I think now they work as expected.

[jdeniau]

Range did change in 5.x in that way yes 😉

[mrazauskas]

One question. I work on List and Map tests. There are cases like this:

// $ExpectError
List().size = 10;

// $ExpectError
Map().size = 10;

This makes sure that .size is readonly. Triggering errors is not always the best testing strategy, because it is not clear what is being tested. Currently in TSTyche I can write these tests like this:

expect(List()).type.toMatch<{ readonly size: number }>();

expect(Map()).type.toMatch<{ readonly size: number }>();

Somewhat better, but still indirect. Here is new idea:

expect(List().size).type.toBeReadonly();

expect(Map().size).type.toBeReadonly();

UPDATE: it is not so simple. I mean, readonly modifier is easy to detect, but other readonly constructs are not so obvious (like Readonly utility type or ReadonlyArray). So I will step back from this idea for now.

Easy to read (and to implement). @jdeniau What you think?

[mrazauskas]

Here and elsewhere .not.toBeCallableWith() matcher should be used instead of .toRaiseError(). Keeping it as it was, but I will come back after implementing .toBeCallableWith():

expect(set).type.not.toBeCallableWith([1, 2, 3], 0, 'a');

[jdeniau]

expect(List().size).type.toBeReadonly();

seems easy to read, so it's a 👍 for me

[mrazauskas]

Thanks for heads up regarding .toBeReadonly(). Noted it in my todo list.

If all looks good here, this PR can be merged.

[jdeniau]

Unrelated failing tests (error in dist-stats, probably with an external call)