feat: sdke 142 support launcher.use in rokt web kit

[jaissica12]

Summary

• Added use method in Rokt-Kit
• Added respective tests for use method
• Related docs: https://docs.rokt.com/developers/integration-guides/web/library/integration-launcher/#use

Testing Plan

• For now tested by adding respective tests in tests.js

[rmi22186]

Minor test clean up, mostly. Looks good otherwise.

[rmi22186]

I would link this docs page in the PR description and remove from the commit. The docs are already not searchable, so the docs likely will go away since it's the legacy way of implementing.

[rmi22186]

This line doesn't seem necessary

[rmi22186]

This seems a bit convoluted to gett he error message. I think the following works:

Suggested change

	const error = await (async () => {
	try {
	await window.mParticle.forwarder.use('ThankYouPageJourney');
	return null;
	} catch (e) {
	return e;
	}
	})();
	(!!error).should.equal(true);
	error.message.should.equal('Rokt Kit: Not initialized');
	try {
	await window.mParticle.forwarder.use('ThankYouPageJourney');
	} catch (error) {
	error.message.should.equal('Rokt Kit: Not initialized');
	}

[rmi22186]

Suggested change

	const error = await (async () => {
	try {
	await window.mParticle.forwarder.use(123);
	return null;
	} catch (e) {
	return e;
	}
	})();
	(!!error).should.equal(true);
	error.message.should.equal('Rokt Kit: Invalid extension name');
	try {
	await window.mParticle.forwarder.use(123);
	} catch (error) {
	error.message.should.equal('Rokt Kit: Invalid extension name');
	}

[rmi22186]

Suggested change

	const error = await (async () => {
	try {
	await window.mParticle.forwarder.use('ThankYouPageJourney');
	return null;
	} catch (e) {
	return e;
	} finally {
	window.console.error = consoleError;
	}
	})();
	try {
	await window.mParticle.forwarder.use('ThankYouPageJourney');
	throw new Error('Expected promise to reject');
	} catch (error) {
	error.message.should.equal('Rokt Kit: Not initialized');
	} finally {
	window.console.error = consoleError;
	}

[rmi22186]

Was there a reason you only did the resetting of window.console.error here to the original state? I think you should follow this in your previous tests where you stub window.console.error as well.

I'd also call the variable originalConsoleError to be more specific.

[jaissica12]

In my initial commit there were two separate tests (reject + log) that I merged into one here, and that’s when I added the restore of console.error in that spot. I’ve now standardized the #use like you suggested.

[rmi22186]

I'm not sure if this test is needed? We don't need to try to mimic the rejection that the launcher.js file gives us when we put in an incorrect extension name.