test: dogfood local tinyexec in vitest

[AriPerkkio]

Resolves #93

[43081j]

could we not just keep the tests as is, but have an extra suite that tests against dist?

[AriPerkkio]

Sure that's also possible. Though I'm not sure I see why that's better - can you clarify? Note that with the current change, we are still testing the sources, not final build. Only the test runner loads the ./dist, tests still load src/**.

[43081j]

i feel like it makes sense to test normally (against sources) but then have a second test against the build output

rather than basically overriding vitest's inner workings as a roundabout way of doing that.

then we have an explicit test against the build output, rather than it being an implicit override.

[AriPerkkio]

Yup that's completely fine. It won't catch incompatibility issues with Vitest though.

I'll close this PR and #93 that are explicitly about dogfooding Tinyexec against its most used dependency. 👍

[43081j]

Ah so that's why you were doing it. Not to test the build output but to test vitest support.

I assumed it was to test the published code.