@cjreimer created the PR here. Do you want to take it for a spin on your project first?

Would appreciate your help with the docs, since you'll have real examples where it makes more sense to use describeScenario

Wow, that was fast! Yes, I'll try to take it for a spin, possibly this weekend!

And yes, I'll write up some docs for this.

Thanks, Danny!

@dac09 It works great! Thanks!

As you noted previously, the const scenario= getScenario() required in each it test is not ideal. I took a brief look myself, and the fact we can't pass an async function to a jest describe block appears to be the limiting factor. I think we can live with this, as it provides an opportunity for performance improvements and the possibility for dependent tests (with caution!)

@dac09, is there any update on the core team being on the same page with this feature? I was waiting on that before starting the docs. Thanks!

@dac09, is there any update on the core team being on the same page with this feature? I was waiting on that before starting the docs. Thanks!

Hey @cjreimer - just discussed, and we're good to go :) - while there are some concerns with the potential for footguns here, we can strongly caution users in the docs that writing tests with describeScenario won't cleanup between tests.

I think it would help also with your examples to explain when it would be useful, and when its likely not the correct tool to reach for.

Great, thanks! I'll start working on the docs!

Closing this PR, as I'm creating a branch with docs and code together.