fix: remove race condition where many suites run in parallel

[tristanzander]

Hello! I was attempting to implement the Report Portal jest reporter into our test project when I came across an interesting error. I added some logging statements and this is what I was presented with in my console when I received the failure:

info: Started test "test 1" fx671t90m2m7mmx4
info: Started test "test 2" fx671t90m2m7mmx6
info: Started test "test 3" fx671t90m2m7mmx8
info: finishing step "test 2" fx671t90m2m7mmx8
info: Started test "test 4" fx671t90m2m7mmx9
info: finishing step "test 3" fx671t90m2m7mmx9
info: finishing step "test 4" fx671t90m2m7mmx9
info: finishing step "test 1" fx671t90m2m7mmx9
error: Error: Item with tempId "fx671t90m2m7mmx9" not found

I discovered that, since our test suites run in parallel, the value of JestReportPortal.tempStepId was repeatedly getting modified and re-used when finishing test steps, causing the error. After modifying the JestReportPortal._finishStep method to look into tempStepIds, the issue no longer happens. I had attempted to remove the reliance on JestReportPortal.tempStepId entirely, but it seems like the ReportingApi doesn't have a good way of knowing the name of the current test (at least, one that matches the format of tempStepIds). The only thing I could see that could be used was global.expect.getState().currentTestName, but that's delimited by spaces instead of forward slashes. Theoretically, the reporter could be modified to use space-delimited names and likely fully support concurrent execution.

Please let me know if you need anything else for this PR to be accepted. The issue I was having was a bit tough to test since it relies on tests being finished in a specific order, but I can attempt to do so if necessary. Thanks!

[AmsterGet]

Hello @tristanzander !
I am happy to accept your contribution.
Thanks for your solution and suggestion for further improvements.
I was planning to dive into it at the end of November after vacation.
But right now, I'll release your changes to at least fix the problem with test finishing.

[tristanzander]

Hello @tristanzander ! I am happy to accept your contribution. Thanks for your solution and suggestion for further improvements. I was planning to dive into it at the end of November after vacation. But right now, I'll release your changes to at least fix the problem with test finishing.

Of course, thank you for your approval! I'll be sure to contribute any fixes/improvements that my team discovers when using these tools.