chore: ensures axe Pro api

[AutoSponge]

This adds tests that will help prevent breaking changes in axe-core that axe Pro depends on.

Closes issue: N/A (Q3 rock)

Reviewer checks

Required fields, to be filled out by PR reviewer(s)

• Follows the commit message policy, appropriate for next version
• Code is reviewed for security

[straker]

Question: Most of these checks are just checking that the API exists, is a function, and returns the correct thing. Should these be unit tests in the respected files rather than an integration test all in one?

[stephenmathieson]

I didn't dig in too far here, but think the test names are very confusing.

better test names, removed console (tried to use Typscript'ish signature conventions)

[AutoSponge]

Question: Most of these checks are just checking that the API exists, is a function, and returns the correct thing. Should these be unit tests in the respected files rather than an integration test all in one?

This file should be marked for special review once it lands, the same way we protect manifest changes in the extension. Changes in this file only could represent a shift in the axe-core api that breaks axe Pro. For that reason, spreading these tests into their respective modules would make it harder to keep an "eye" on the api axe Pro requires to operate.

removed all "isFunction" checks

[WilcoFiers]

@AutoSponge +1 on the decision to only test call signatures. We're testing those functions in depth elsewhere. I agree with the idea of adding you and/or Harris as code owner for these tests.

[stephenmathieson]

Is there anything that needs to happen based on #1836 (comment)?

[AutoSponge]

@stephenmathieson I assume a code owner of axe-core will need to update the reviewer settings when this file lands.

Should this PR include an update to .github/CODEOWNERS? We don't currently have an axe-pro owners group.

[stephenmathieson]

I think this can land without a "codeowners" update and when @WilcoFiers's back, he can decide what to do moving forward.